R.S.A. No. 380 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 380 of 2010 Date of decision : 7.2.2011 Maya Devi and others ......Appellants Versus Ram Kumar and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they had become owners in possession of the suit property by efflux of time being mortgagees. The forefathers of the defendants i.e. Lado widow of Tirkha had mortgaged the suit property with possession with the forefathers of the plaintiff on 1.10.1878 for a sum of ` 156/-. Since then the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest were in possession of the suit property. Defendant had filed a petition before Collector, Gohana for redemption of the mortgage. The said petition was decided in favour of the defendant vide R.S.A. No. 380 of 2010 2 order dated 22.5.2006. The order passed by the Collector was illegal, null and void. The prescribed period for redemption of mortgage had already expired. Defendants, in their written statement, admitted the fact that suit property had been mortgaged by Lado with the forefathers of the plaintiffs. However, the suit land was sought to be redeemed and the Collector, Gohana had passed an order in favour of the defendants on 22.5.2006. Since, it was a usufructuary mortgage, there was no time period fixed for redemption. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the ancestors of defendant mortgage the suit land in possession with the forefathers of plaintiff on 31.10.1878 for a sum of Rs.156/-, if so to what effect? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved whether the impugned order of redemption passed by the Collector, Gohana dated 22.5.2006 pertaining to the suit land is illegal, null and void on the ground that because of afflux of time, the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit property, as the land was not redeemed ? OPP. 3. If issue no.1 and 2 are proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of injunction, as prayed for ? OPP. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD. R.S.A. No. 380 of 2010 3 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiffs have suppresses the material facts from the court ? OPD. 8. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2009, trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Parties are not at variance so far as the facts of the case are concerned. Admittedly, suit property was mortgaged by Lado in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff on 31.10.1878 for a sum of Rs.156/-. However, there are no written terms and conditions qua the said mortgage. Apparently, no time period had been fixed qua the mortgage. A Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan and others vs. Sheo Ram and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 334 has held as under :- “42. Therefore, we answer the questions framed to hold that in case of usufructuary mortgage, where no time limit is fixed to seek redemption, the right to seek redemption wold not arise on the date of mortgage but will arise on the date when the mortgagor pays or tenders to the mortgagee or deposits in Court the R.S.A. No. 380 of 2010 4 mortgage money or the balance thereof. Thus, it is held that once a mortgage always a mortgage and is always redeemable.” Thus, the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as in a case where no time limit has been fixed qua redemption, Mortgagor has a right to get it redeemed at any time. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 7, 2011 Anand