Regular Second Appeal No. 408 of 2002 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 408 of 2002 and Cross-objection No. 14-C of 2002 Date of Decision: August 27, 2009 Jugraj Singh and others ......... Appellants versus Mohinder Singh (dead) through his LR and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Arun Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1 HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the suit land by efflux of time, was dismissed but the plaintiffs were found entitled to recover possession of land measuring 14 Kanals 12 Marlas and the defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. One Sham Singh s/o Dharam Singh was owner of 1/3rd share of land measuring 103 Kanals 14 Marlas. His 1/3rd share i.e. 34 Kanals 11 Marlas, after consolidation, was mortgaged to Bachan Singh, Bela Singh and Gurbax Singh for Rs.493.33 orally. Mutation No. 4043 of delivery of possession was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff No.1 and his brother Regular Second Appeal No. 408 of 2002 [2] Jagrup Singh on 31.8.1960. It is the case of the appellants that suit property was never redeemed by Sham Singh or after his death by his heirs, therefore, the plaintiffs have become the owners of the suit land by efflux of time as period of redemption of 30 years from the date of mortgage stands expired. In the written statement, it was the stand of the defendants that the suit property was got redeemed in the year 1961 and the defendants are in possession of the land measuring 14 Kanals 12 Marlas as owners since 1962. However, during the course of trial, it was found that the defendants are in possession of 14 Kanals 12 Marlas since 8.4.1992. With the said finding, the learned trial Court decreed the suit holding the plaintiffs and defendants No.11 and 12 to be the owners of the suit property measuring 31 Kanals 11 Marlas and they are also entitled to recover possession of the land measuring 14 Kanals 12 Marlas which allegedly came in possession of the defendants forcibly. The said judgment and decree was set aside by the learned First Appellate Court whereby decree declaring the plaintiffs to be owners of the suit property on account of failure of the mortgagor to redeem the suit property was dismissed. However, the plaintiffs were found entitled to possession of 14 Kanals 12 Marlas subject to redemption of the suit land in accordance with law. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs are in second appeal, whereas the defendants have filed cross-objections claiming that the decree for possession of land measuring 14 Kanals 12 Marlas is not sustainable as the defendants are in possession as owners of the suit land. Regular Second Appeal No. 408 of 2002 [3] I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that they have come owners of the suit property ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession of land measuring 14 Kanals 12 Marlas ? Though the learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the appellants are entitled to declaration that they are owners of the suit property on account of failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property within the period of 30 years from the date of mortgage. But the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan and others vs. Sheo Ram and others, AIR 2008 Punjab and Haryana 77, has held that there is no period of limitation for redemption of usufructuary mortgage and the principle once a mortgage always a mortgage is applicable to such mortgage. The appellants have been rightly declined the declaration that the mortgagees have become owners of the suit land by efflux of time. However, the cross objections filed by the defendants merit acceptance in view of the fact that possession of the defendants over the suit property may not be in accordance with law, but they are owners. No decree for possession can be passed against the owners in case of violation of the terms of mortgage in respect of security. The plaintiffs have a right to claim the mortgage amount only, in security of which, the property was mortgaged. In view of the said fact, the present appeal is dismissed and while accepting the cross-objections and setting aside the judgment and decree for possession of 14 Kanals 12 Marlas, the suit filed by the Regular Second Appeal No. 408 of 2002 [4] mortgagees is dismissed. Needless to say that the possession of the appellants on the remaining land is that of a mortgagee and it is for the mortgagor to seek redemption of the suit land in accordance with law. August 27, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE