JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- Defendant no. 1 has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. 2. Suit was filed by respondents no. 1 and 2 against appellants and respondents no. 3 to 14. Land measuring 5 kanals 3 marlas was mortgaged by its erstwhile owner Tarlok Chand father of defendant no. 4 with Mukand Nabh predecessor-in-interest of defendants no. 1 to 3 for Rs 1000/- vide registered mortgage deed dated 1.7.1970. Plaintiff no. 1 purchased 2 kanals 5 marlas land being half share of 4 kanals 10 marlas land from Tarlok Chand vide registered sale deed dated 13.6.1974. Plaintiff no. 1 undertook to pay the mortgage money of Rs 1000/- with interest of Rs 480/- on the mortgage money and accordingly plaintiff no. 1 paid Rs 1480/- as total mortgage money to mortgagee Mukand Nabh and mortgage was redeemed. Thereafter Tarlok Chand also sold 1 kanal 4½ marlas land out of 2 kanals 9 marlas to Mukand Nabh vide sale deed dated 10.3.1980. The said sale was without encumbrance. Tarlok Chand also sold 1kanal 6½ land out of remaining 3 kanals 7 marlas land to plaintiff no. 2 vide sale deed dated 27.4.1977 with recital that there was no encumbrance on the said land. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the respective lands purchased by them without any encumbrance and in the alternative they also sought redemption of the mortgage. 3. Defendants no. 1 and 2 contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations. They pleaded that no mortgage money was ever paid to Mukand Nabh and there was no redemption of mortgage. Various other pleas were also raised. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nawanshahr vide judgment and decree dated 22.5.2006 decreed the plaintiffs’ suit declaring that they are owners in possession of the respective land purchased by them without any encumbrance and revenue entries regarding mortgage were required to be corrected accordingly. Permanent injunction was also granted as prayed for. Mortgage of the suit land was held to have been redeemed. First appeal preferred by defendant no. 1 stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr vide judgment and decree dated 10.3.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 1 only has preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Mortgage of the suit land was held to have been redeemed. First appeal preferred by defendant no. 1 stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr vide judgment and decree dated 10.3.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 1 only has preferred the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 6. Admittedly, original mortgage deed was produced in the trial court by the plaintiffs although initially only photostat copy thereof was produced. If mortgage had not been redeemed, original mortgage deed would have been in possession of the mortgagees i.e. defendant nos. 1 to 3. The very fact that the original mortgage deed was in possession of the plaintiffs would depict that mortgage stood redeemed. 7. In addition to the aforesaid, there is endorsement dated 13.6.1974 on the back of the mortgage deed regarding redemption thereof on payment of mortgage money of Rs 1480/- including interest on the original mortgage amount of Rs 1000/-. The mere fact that the said endorsement was not specifically pleaded in the plaint would not deprive the endorsement of evidentiary value. On the other hand, if the mortgage had not been redeemed, no endorsement could have been made on the original mortgage deed. Mortgagee Mukand Nabh himself purchased some land out of the mortgaged land vide sale deed dated 10.3.1980. No recital regarding encumbrance or mortgage was made in the said sale deed nor it was mentioned that mortgage money stood adjusted out of sale consideration or mortgage money remained encumbrance on the remaining land. Mukand Nabh mortgagee was party to the said sale deed and it would also depict that mortgage stood redeemed. 8. Plaintiff no. 2 purchased part of the mortgaged land vide sale deed dated 27.4.1977 and in that sale deed also it was specifically recited that the land was free from encumbrance. It would also depict that the mortgage stood redeemed. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below that the mortgage stood redeemed. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Finding recorded by the courts below is fully justified by evidence on record and supported by cogent reasons. The appeal lacks any merit and is dismissed accordingly. ------------