R.S.A. No.1037 of 1983 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1037 of 1983 Date of Decision. 13.12.2011 Kabal Singh and another .....Appellants Versus Sarwan Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for respondent Nos.52 and 53. 2. RSA No.1498 of 1983 Kamaljit Kaur and another .....Appellants Versus Sarwan Singh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Onkar Rai, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate for respondents No.56 to 58. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. There is no representation for the appellant in RSA No.1037 of 1983. Learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No.1498 of 1983 is present. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in appeal:- R.S.A. No.1037 of 1983 -2- Whether the mortgagee could foreclose a redemption of a mortgage by contending that the property had not been redeemed within 30 years from the date of mortgage and hence barred by limitation? 2. Both these cases are at the instance of purchasers of equity of redemption from the original owners-mortgagors of the property. They were defendants in the suit and the suit had been filed by the successor of the mortgagee claiming that they have become owners of property by virtue of the fact that the mortgagors are not redeemed the property within a period of limitation namely 30 years from the date when the mortgage was accepted. This contention was accepted and two appeals had been filed, one at the instance of the respective purchasers and another by the mortgagors as co-respondents along with the plaintiff. It is the consecutive decrees obtained by the plaintiff that are in challenge before this Court. 3. The issue whether the mortgagee could obtain a declaration by contending that on the period of expiration of 30 years from the date of execution of mortgage the character of the property as an owner would obtain has been considered by this Court in Ram Kumar and others Vs. Mohinder and others in RSA No.2628 of 1992. I have held on the basis of Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kishan Vs. Shiv Ram ILR 2008 (1) P&H 719 and by additional reasoning that such a suit is not maintainable and a mortgagee whose mortgage is not redeemed will continue to a mortgagee unless the redemption is lost either by conduct of parties or by a decree of Court. The decree granted by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court cannot, therefore, be R.S.A. No.1037 of 1983 -3- sustained. The trial Court decree is set aside and both the appeals are allowed with costs throughout. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 13, 2011 Pankaj*