Regular Second Appeal No. 3292 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3292 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.3.2009 *** Jeetpal ..APPELLANT VS. Khatmal & Ors. ..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant after having remained unsuccessful before the two Courts below have preferred the instant Regular Second Appeal. It emerges out from the record that the predecessor-in-interest of appellant namely Puran Mal got instituted the suit and claiming himself to be the mortgagee with possession of the suit land since 1964 sought proprietory rights of the same with the efflux of time, as according to him neither the original mortgagor nor the defendants, who stepped into the shoes of original owner, redeemed the suit land. The stand of the contesting defendants, on the other hand, was that the plaintiff though get share in the suit land but he sold out his share and he is not in physical possession of the same and thus no right of ownership vested in his favour with lapse of time. Revenue record reflected that the suit land was mortgaged with the plaintiff by the original owner Chander @ Chandru on 19.12.1964 but there is nothing on record to suggest that the said mortgage was for prescribed period. The Courts below, in absence of evidence regarding stipulation of any period within which the said land was to be re-deemed, held that the mortgagor has a right to get the property redeemed at any time. It has further been observed that limitation of redemption would run from Regular Second Appeal No. 3292 of 2008 2 the date fixed in the mortgage deed and if no period of limitation fixed, then the usufructuary mortgage can be got redeemed at any time because the rights of usufructuary mortgagor does not stand extinguished by lapse of time. Nothing has been shown by learned counsel for the appellant to take a contrary view. Even in the case of Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors. 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 334, rendered by Full Bench of this Court, it has been held that when no period of redemption was fixed and the land was not redeemed for 60 years, the mortgagees do not become owners by prescription and that once a mortgage always a mortgage and is always redeemable. In the light of the legal proposition, referred to above, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant even cannot derive any benefit by producing copy of application dated 10.10.2000 and order dated 27.10.2003, sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, vide which the application filed under Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgagees Act, by the contesting defendants, was dismissed for want of prosecution. No ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 19,2009 Jiten