JUDGEMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The appellants were defendants in case No. 88 of 1991 dismissed on 1.6.1994 by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No. II, Amb. Ram Chand and respondent No. 2 Bidhi Chand had filed case No. 88/1991. The learned Addl. District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala (Camp at Una) allowed Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1994 on 7.4.2000, which was filed by Ram Chand and Bidhi Chand. The judgement dated 7.4.2000 has been assailed in second appeal by the defendants. 2. The facts in brief are that Ram Chand predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1(a) to 1(h) and Bidhi Chand respondent No. 2 had filed suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of land more specifically described in the plaint. The appellants in connivance with settlement staff got procured entry showing them as mortgagees under Ram Chand and Bidhi Chand, such entry is wrong and illegal. Ram Chand and Bidhi Chand or their predecessors never created any mortgage of suit land in favour of appellants or their predecessors. The appellants threatened to interfere in possession of Ram Chand and Bidhi Chand on suit land, hence as consequential relief, permanent prohibitory injunction was also prayed against appellants in the suit. 3. The suit was contested by the appellants by taking preliminary objections of maintainability, estoppel, limitation. According to appellants, half share of khasra No. 1851 was mortgaged by Gopi, a co-sharer in favour of Avja predecessor-in-interest of appellants for Rs. 52/- and 8 annas, mutation No. 711 dated 25.3.1992 was also attested. The parties were co-sharers and in joint possession. The suit land was partitioned vide mutation No. 3841, the land comprised in khasra No. 1851 vide jamabandi for the year 1971-72 was allotted to appellants. The mortgaged land was never redeemed, therefore, appellants have become owners by afflux of time. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether entry as mortgagees of the suit land is incorrect? OPP. 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of injunction? OPP 4. If issue No. 1 is not proved, whether parties are entitled to the decree of possession? OPP. 5. Whether the suit land was partitioned in 1971 and khasra No. 1851 allotted to the defendants? OPD. 6. Whether the defendants have become owners by afflux of time? OPD. 7. 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the decree of injunction? OPP 4. If issue No. 1 is not proved, whether parties are entitled to the decree of possession? OPP. 5. Whether the suit land was partitioned in 1971 and khasra No. 1851 allotted to the defendants? OPD. 6. Whether the defendants have become owners by afflux of time? OPD. 7. Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their acts/ conduct? OPD. 8. Relief. The issues No. 1 to 4 and 7 were answered in negative, whereas issues No. 5 and 6 in affirmative and suit was dismissed on 1.6.1994. The learned Addl. District Judge on 7.4.2000 allowed the appeal and declared Ram Chand and Bidhi Chand owners in possession of the suit land, the mutation No. 3841 showing Ram Chand and Bidhi Chand as mortgagors and the appellants as mortgagees was declared wrong, illegal and void, the appellants were restrained from interfering in the possession of Ram Chand and Bidhi Chand on the suit land, hence second appeal. Ram Chand died during the pendency of second appeal and his legal representatives respondents 1(a) to 1(h) were brought on record. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the integrity of mortgage stands broken on the mortgagee having succeeded to a part of the mortgage property by way of succession? 2. Whether the learned first appellate court has erred in law in making out absolutely a new case for the plaintiff? 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned Addl. District Judge has erred in returning the findings that integrity of mortgage stands broken on the mortgagees having succeeded to a part of mortgaged property by way of succession. It has been submitted that learned Addl. District Judge has made out absolutely a new case for decreeing the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgement, decree. He has submitted that no fault can be found with the judgement and decree passed by learned Addl. District Judge. In any case, on facts the learned Addl. District Judge has found that suit land has not been connected with the mortgage allegedly created as per the defence of appellants. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. He has submitted that no fault can be found with the judgement and decree passed by learned Addl. District Judge. In any case, on facts the learned Addl. District Judge has found that suit land has not been connected with the mortgage allegedly created as per the defence of appellants. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. The substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are interconnected, therefore, both are taken up collectively for disposal. As per the case of the appellants, the land comprised in khasra No. 1851 to the extent of half share measuring 1 kanal 17 marlas was mortgaged in favour of Avja their predecessor-in-interest on 25.3.1922. It is also the case of the appellants that another co-sharer Gopi created the mortgage in favour of Avja. On the death of Gopi, his estate devolved on his heirs, namely Jai Singh, Sohnu and Avja. As per mutation No. 3162 dated 13.2.1961 appellants succeeded Avja. It is thus clear that appellants through Avja succeeded Gopi and thus succeeded alleged mortgagors’ right in the suit land to the extent of their shares. The appellants are also claiming themselves as mortgagees through their predecessor on the suit land. The appellants cannot be mortgagors as well as the mortgagees on the same land to the extent of their shares. The Addl. District Judge is right in holding that integrity of mortgage was broken in view of subsequent event. In these circumstances, the appellants cannot project their case of mortgagees on the suit land under the respondents. The case of the respondents is simple, they have filed the suit on the basis of their title. The appellants have taken the plea of mortgagees and having become owners of the suit land by afflux of time, which plea during trial they could not establish and was not found to be legal and tenable. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Addl. District Judge has created a new case for respondents. The Addl. District Judge has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record in returning the findings that integrity of mortgage was broken after the death of Gopi and Avja. 6. The case can be looked from yet another angle. The Addl. District Judge has created a new case for respondents. The Addl. District Judge has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record in returning the findings that integrity of mortgage was broken after the death of Gopi and Avja. 6. The case can be looked from yet another angle. The Addl. District Judge on facts has recorded a finding that suit land has not been connected in any way with khasra No. 1851 and in recording this finding Addl. District Judge has considered oral and documentary evidence. It has not been pointed out that such findings of learned Addl. District Judge do not emerge from the evidence on record or material evidence has been ignored and inadmissible evidence has been considered in recording such finding. The appellants have also not projected the case of misconstruction of evidence for recording this finding. In second appeal, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Therefore, seeing from any angle, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law are decided against the appellants. 7. No other point was urged. 8. The result of above discussion, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.