JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh, J.:- Plaintiff no.2 is in second appeal against the concurrent findings returned by the Courts below, whereby suit filed by him as well as by respondent no.2 for mandatory injunction has been dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge(Sr. Divn.), Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.2012 and the findings thereof have been affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 18.09.2012. 2. In brief, facts of the case are that plaintiffs had sought mandatory injunction against respondent no.1 Sub Registrar Sangat, District Bathinda, to direct him to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff no.1 Dilbagh Singh, which as per the allegations, the Sub Registrar refused to execute and thus failed to perform his statutory duty to receive the document and admit to registration or to refuse to do so. 3. Upon notice, the Sub Registrar-defendant appeared and contested the claim of the plaintiffs and stated that the alleged sale deed is a bogus and fake document and through the present suit are trying to create their right, title and interest in the property which does not belong to them and rather belongs to Jangir Singh. It was further stated that the original sale deed has not been appended with the plaint regarding whose registration the suit has been filed. It was further stated that the alleged document was never presented for registration at any point of time and the entire story has been concocted in order to create a title in favour of the plaintiff no.2/appellant under the garb of the present suit. 4. From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides lead their evidence in support of their respective claims and after appreciating their evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit and findings thereof were affirmed by the learned lower Appellate Court. Hence the present second appeal. 5. I have heard the appellant and have also gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance. 6. Appellant in person has argued that the courts below have misinterpreted the suit filed by him, as he is only seeking mandatory injunction against the defendant department to execute the sale deed or to refuse to execute the same as per law. 6. Appellant in person has argued that the courts below have misinterpreted the suit filed by him, as he is only seeking mandatory injunction against the defendant department to execute the sale deed or to refuse to execute the same as per law. It has been further argued that the learned Courts below have exceeded their jurisdiction by returning a finding that the property in question does not belong to the appellant and thus, the scope of Section 77 of the Registration Act 1908 has been exceeded. To support his argument appellant has relied upon AIR 1973 Patna 443 (V 60 C 142) Jokhan Jha & Anr. Vs. Ram Saran Jha & Ors. 7. After hearing appellant in person and having gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance, this Court is of the considered view that the present second appeal is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on a refusal by the defendant Sub Registrar to execute the deed in question in favour of respondent no.2 herein. A perusal of the record reveals that there is no cogent and convincing evidence led by the plaintiffs to the effect that they indeed went to the office of Sub Registrar to get the sale deed executed and the Sub Registrar refused to entertain the same. No document or evidence is coming forward to prove the said fact. Furthermore, a perusal of the file reveals that even the original proposed sale deed is not part of the record, upon which the Court could have come to the conclusion as to whether the sale deed was entertained by defendant or its officials. The averments regarding objections being raised by the office of Sub Registrar of insufficient stamp duty etc., could only have been proved from the original document. Unfortunately, the said document is not a part of the record and thus, in view of the complete lack of evidence, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs ever approached the Sub Registrar to get the sale deed executed. 9. Unfortunately, the said document is not a part of the record and thus, in view of the complete lack of evidence, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs ever approached the Sub Registrar to get the sale deed executed. 9. As far as the argument raised by appellant regarding findings returned by the Courts below that the appellant is not the owner of the property, this Court is of the opinion that the said findings are completely incidental thereto and do not in any way prove or disprove the ownership of the appellant. As and when the question would arise regarding ownership of property concerned, the appellant would have to prove his ownership in accordance with law and only then he would succeed. Thus, with these observations, the suit filed by the appellant is dismissed without their being any merit in the same. 10. In view of the above, finding no question of law, much less substantial question of law arising for determination in the present second appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.