JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.(Oral):- Defendants/appellants are in second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below whereby the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed by the trial court and the appeal filed by defendants was dismissed by the appellate court. 2. Facts necessary for the decision of the present second appeal are that plaintiff/respondent filed the suit alleging that earlier his father namely Sandhura Singh was owner of the suit land alongwith other land and he died on 17.1.2003 leaving behind the plaintiff(son) and one daughter. It was further alleged that said Sandhura Singh during his lifetime and in sound disposing mind had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff and thus plaintiff had become owner of entire estate of Sandhura Singh. It was further alleged that Sandhura Singh never mortgaged the suit land either to Sarwan Singh or to the defendants nor received any amount as mortgagee. It was also alleged that Sandhura Singh, father of the plaintiff was involved in a criminal case and thus he allowed Sarwan Singh, being close relative of plaintiff, to cultivate the suit land as licensee under him and thus the possession of Sarwan Singh was permissive and remained as such through out, but Sarwan Singh in connivance with revenue staff got himself recorded as mortgagee in possession of the suit land. It was further alleged that after the death of said Sarwan Singh, defendants were claiming themselves to be his legal heirs on the basis of a Will executed by him during his life time and got the mutation of his estate sanctioned in their favour. According to the plaintiff the defendants merely stepped into the shoes of said Sarwan Singh and thus they became licensees under Sandhura Singh. It was further alleged that Sandhura Singh was again involved in a criminal case and taking benefit of the wrong entries, defendants filed civil suit no.119 dated 1.9.1998 which was dismissed ex-parte on 5.2.2000. Appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed. It was alleged that both the courts held that there was no valid mortgage deed established by the defendants and that no revision/appeal was filed by the defendants. It was further alleged that despite revocation of license by the plaintiff, defendants failed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit land. 3. It was alleged that both the courts held that there was no valid mortgage deed established by the defendants and that no revision/appeal was filed by the defendants. It was further alleged that despite revocation of license by the plaintiff, defendants failed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit land. 3. Upon notice of the suit, defendants filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits it was alleged that father of the plaintiff mortgaged the suit land with the father of defendants for about 100 years back and the possession was also given to the defendants; till today the land had not been got redeemed and as such defendants have become owners of the suit property. It was further the stand of the defendants that even if they were not proved to be mortgagees, even then their possession over the suit land had ripened into ownership being in adverse possession to the knowledge of all. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Both sides led evidence. The learned trial court after hearing both sides and perusing the oral/documentary evidence available on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.4.2008. Aggrieved against the same, defendants filed appeal which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.6.2011. Hence the present second appeal. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants/ appellants that both the courts below have failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced on record as the case of the defendants/appellants is fully supported by the revenue record since the year 1908, whereby defendants are recorded as mortgagees and earlier to the defendants, their grand father Sarwan Singh was recorded as mortgagee in possession. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove the relationship of licensee between the plaintiff and defendants and that right of redemption had already elapsed due to the law of limitation. 6. After hearing the learned counsel, I find no force in the submissions raised on behalf of the defendants/appellants. 7. It is further submitted that there is no evidence on record to prove the relationship of licensee between the plaintiff and defendants and that right of redemption had already elapsed due to the law of limitation. 6. After hearing the learned counsel, I find no force in the submissions raised on behalf of the defendants/appellants. 7. It is apparent that plaintiff Harpal Singh had filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of the suit land measuring 15K19M described in the head note of the plaint irrespective of the contrary revenue entries alongwith consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants/appellants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit land since they have nothing to do with the suit land as mortgagees. It is not in dispute between the parties that Sandhura Singh, father of plaintiff Harpal Singh was owner of the suit property as established by the documentary evidence produced on record. It is the stand of the defendants/appellants that said Sandhura Singh had mortgaged the suit land in favour of Sarwan Singh, grandfather of the defendants/appellants and the revenue entries show the defendants/appellants to be mortgagees of the suit land. In rebuttal, the stand of the plaintiff is that revenue entries have been manipulated by the defendants in connivance with the revenue officials and hence not binding on him. It is also not disputed that the alleged mortgage deed executed in favour of Sarwan Singh has never seen the light of the day. It is also not in dispute that defendants/appellants had earlier filed a civil suit seeking declaration regarding the suit property alleging themselves to be mortgagees and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 5.2.2000 (Ex.P5) and the appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed vide Ex.P6. In my opinion, both the courts below have rightly drawn an adverse inference against the defendants/appellants for non-production of the alleged mortgage deed and have rightly held them to be bound by the judgments and decrees Ex.P5 and P6. 8. In view of the above, the present second appeal is dismissed as no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal. ------------------