1. ' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--- This judgment will dispose of the civil appeal which has arisen out of the following facts: ' The respondent No,1 brought a suit for redemption of mortgage on payment of Rs,2,500. He asserted that equity of redemption was gifted to him by the sister of the original owner vide Mutation No,24 attested on 30-11-1962. The suit was contested by the appellant on the ground that the respondent No,1 had no title to the property and that he had purchased the equity of redemption in the year 1950. Twelve issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties. The learned Civil Judge on 5-12-1971 granted a preliminary decree to respondent No,1 and a final decree was passed on 25-3-1975. The case of the appellant was that the sale-deed D.W.2/1 was executed by Miss Ashbi, the original owner of the disputed property. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. These orders were challenged in second appeal before the High Court. The High Court also rejected the appeal of the appellant. The case of the appellant depends on the document Exh.D.W.2/1 which according to the appellant was executed by Miss Ashbi in favour of the appellant. Miss Ashbi had denied the correctness of the document and appellant's plea was not accepted. The learned High Court observed that the document bears the stamp of Government of Occupied Kashmir but the document has not been proved and the document on the face of it does not appear to be genuine firstly for the reason that it is stated therein that the amount was being paid by the defendant to Miss Ashbi on the date of execution of the document which is an impossibility; and secondly, Miss Ashbi denied the sale of equity of redemption when she appeared before the Revenue Officer. On the basis of this document, the appellant got the mutation entered with the Revenue Officer. Miss Ashbi had herself appeared before the Revenue Officer at the time of transfer of the property to the respondent No,1 but had denied the execution of the sale-deed. All the Courts have held that the appellant had no title to the property. The title of the respondent No,1 has been established. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, there is no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed.