Amol Rattan Singh, J.

1. This is the second appeal of the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking possession of the suit property, upon redemption of the mortgage stated to have been entered into between the parties to the lis on 23.08.1990. The suit property is stated to be a shop owned by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff).

2. The facts, taken from the judgments of the learned Courts below, are that as per the plaintiff, he was the owner of the shop in question which he mortgaged to the defendant with possession thereof, for a consideration of Rs.6500/-, vide a registered mortgage deed dated 23.08.1990 and since then the appellant-defendant (hereinafter to be referred to as the defendant) had continued in possession over the shop as a mortgagee. The original mortgage deed was stated to be in the possession of the defendant.

It was further contended that despite repeated requests from the plaintiff, that the mortgage be redeemed upon him making a payment of Rs.6500/- in favour of the defendant, it had not been redeemed and the mortgaged shop had not been vacated, leading to the institution of the suit on 22.07.2003.

3. Upon notice issued to him, the defendant filed a written statement to the effect that, firstly, the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit, which was not maintainable, as in fact there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, in respect of the suit property itself and that the alleged mortgage deed was a “forged and fictitious” document.

On merits, it was contended that no amount of Rs.6500/- had ever been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and consequently, no mortgage deed had been entered into.

As per the defendant, he was in need of a shop for running his business of tailoring in the year 1989 and therefore he had requested the plaintiff to let out the shop to him and it was against the tenancy so created, that a mortgage deed had been reduced into writing by way of security. Actually the shop had been taken on rent at the rate of Rs.325/- per month, with it being agreed that rent would be enhanced by Rs.100/- per month, every five years. A number of respectable persons, namely Kuldeep Singh, Kashmira Singh, Bachittar Singh and Tarlochan Singh, were present at the time of that oral agreement but on pressure exerted by the plaintiff, the defendant had executed the mortgage deed dated 23.08.1990, with no mortgage money paid at that time.

Thereafter, the plaintiff insisted that the rent be increased after every three years and then threatened to get the property vacated by filing a suit for redemption.

Denying the rest of the averments of the plaint also, dismissal of the suit was consequently prayed for.

A replication having been filed by the plaintiff, denying the contents of the written statement and reiterating those of the plaint, the following issues were framed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam:-

“1. Whether plaintiff mortgaged the shop in dispute to the defendant for a sum of Rs.6500/- vide mortgage deed dated 23.08.1990? OPP

2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to possession by way of redemption of shop as described in the head note of the plaint? OPP

3. Whether the mortgage agreement was a 'sham transaction'? OPD

4. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD

4A. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

4B. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4C. Whether plaintiff is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

4D. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit? OPD

7. Relief.”

4. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined a Registry Clerk, Gurdeep Singh, deed-writer Raj Kumar and one Pawan Kumar, other than himself.

He also relied upon certain documents which he tendered in evidence.

Subsequently, an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, seekin