RAM RAKHI Vs. BIMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed at the instance of the defendant who has lost in the two Courts below. On 11.12.1969, the predecessor -in -interest of respondent 1 and 2, Amar Shah, Plaintiff, since deceased, executed a mortgage of the shop situated in Pinjore for a sum of Rs. 2000/ - through a registered mortgage deed with the defendant -appellant, Ram Rakhi and delivered the possession of the demised premises to her at that time. As the defendant was unwilling to redeem the mortgage and to return the mortgage money, they issued a notice to the appellant (Exhibit P -6) on 7.1.1980 calling upon her to redeem the mortgage. This notice was replied to by the appellant vide Annexure P -9 dated 19.1.1980 in which the positive stand taken was that she was willing to redeem the mortgage property if a sum of Rs. 16,000/ - that had been spent by her on reconstruction of the shop after it had been demolished in the emergency was given to her. As no further action was taken in the matter by the appellant, the suit for redemption was filed by Amar Shah Plaintiff. As already indicated above, Amar Shah died during the pendency of the proceedings and Bimla Devi and Jamna Devi respondents 1 and 2 were inducted as legal heirs. The trial Court framed the following issues: -

(2.) MR . Gopi Chand, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised three points before me today. His first argument has been that the mortgage deed in original was required to be produced on record as required under Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act and that a certified copy of the mortgage deed produced on the record was not admissible in evidence. He has also urged that no admission had been made by the appellant in her written statement or in her reply to the notice Exhibit P -9 and that if this Court had to reply upon the alleged admission made in the written statement, that must be taken in totality as held in Dudh Nath Pandev (Dead) by LRs v. Suresh Chandra Bhattassali (Dead) by LRs : (1986) 3 SCC 360, and Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh : A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 343. He has finally urged that it was the requirement of law that in case an admission had to be relied upon by the trial Court, it was appropriate that it be put to the person who had made it so that its veracity could be examined.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. A.K. Chopra, learned counsel for the respondents, has urged that the finding of fact arrived at by the two Courts below could not be interfered with more particularly in the light of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as no substantial question of law had been raised in the appeal. He has urged that from a mere reading of the documents in question, it was clear that the factum of the mortgage deed having been executed stood duly proved.