on 05.03.2002. In other words, the out of Court settlement is said to have taken place during pendency of the final decree proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondent would claim that summon in the final decree proceedings was received by the respondent much later and on 05.03.2002, the respondent did not have any knowledge of the institution of the final decree proceedings. The respondent had entered appearance in the final decree proceedings only on 22.06.2002. To test the veracity of the claim of the respondent, it is necessary to bear in mind the sequence of events from the beginning. The financial transaction between the parties had taken place in 1985-1986. The mortgage deeds were registered on 30.01.1986 and 02.07.1987 (Ex.A1 and Ex.A.3). The plaintiff issued suit notice on 04.01.1995 (Ex.A.4). The defendant sent reply on 06.01.1995 (Ex.A.5). In O.S.No.2 of 1996, the respondent herein filed written statement that on 25.01.1995, he paid a sum of Rs.67,000/- and the appellant issued Ex.B.2/receipt. It is this Ex.B2/receipt that was rejected as fabricated by the Trial Court. In other words, the respondent herein claimed that after the exchange of suit notices, he paid a sum of Rs.67,000/- towards discharge of the mortgage liability. The suit came to be filed only on 25.10.1995. If really on 25.01.1995 the entire mortgage debt had been discharged, certainly the respondent would have got the same duly registered so that the encumbrance of mortgage created against the mortgaged property is deleted. The adverse finding of the Trial Court as against Ex.B.2 dated 25.01.1995 projected by the respondent was not challenged by the respondent by filing a first appeal. This conduct of the respondent was taken note of by the learned Trial Judge while deciding the issue raised in the final decree proceedings. As already observed, the final decree petition was filed on 17.01.2002 and notice was issued on 29.01.2002, returnable by 18.03.2002. It is in this background, the respondent claims that on 05.03.2002, the out of Court settlement took place in the shop premises of D.W.2/Raja. Since the relationship between the parties suffered from trust deficit, the respondent could have paid the amount or arrived at settlement before the Court. He had not done so. The amount of Rs.45,000/- could have been paid through demand draft. More than anything else, he did not take any step for getting the discharge certificate duly registered. So long as the discharge certificate is not registered, the encumbrance of mortgage will continue to remain in registration records. More than anything else, the Trial Court had pointed out too many discrepancies between the testimony of D.W.1 on the one hand and the attesting witnesses on the other. D.W.2/Raja had deposed that on 05.03.2002, the figure of compromise amount was not discussed. He would also state that the respondent herein did not bring the amount in question and only after the compromise was finalized, he went out and brought it in about two hours. He also did not know as to how he sourced the said amount. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
