R. S. A. No. 3647 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 3647 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 05, 2011 Amarjit .... Appellant Vs. Madan Lal and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Monika Jalota, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 10730-C of 2010 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : Plaintiff Amarjit, having lost in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant, claiming himself to be transferee of the original mortgagees, alleged that he has become owner in possession of the suit land by efflux of time as the mortgage was not redeemed within limitation period of 30 days. Defendants are transferees from original R. S. A. No. 3647 of 2010 (O&M) 2 owner/mortgagors. They also raised defence that the mortgage was redeemed by paying mortgage money to plaintiff's father and predecessor vide receipt dated 02.06.1970. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 08.08.2008, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 24.02.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan and others vs. Sheo Ram and others reported as 2008 (1) Punjab Law Reporter 1 has laid down that there is no limitation period for redemption of usufructuary mortgage. Consequently, even if plaintiff's averments are taken on face value, he cannot be said to have become owner of the suit land by efflux of time. Accordingly, without going into the plea of defendants regarding alleged redemption of mortgage, the plaintiff-appellant cannot succeed. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 05, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE