Regular Second Appeal No. 4375 of 2000 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4375 of 2000 Date of Decision: September 02, 2009 Harbans Singh and others ......... Appellants versus Chand Singh and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ravish Bansal, Advocate for Shri Ashok Singla, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for possession by way of redemption of the suit land was decreed. The land in dispute was owned by Bishan Singh. Bishan Singh sold the same to one Dhian Singh. The said sale was challenged by the reversioners. The suit was decreed on 12.03.1947. The plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession being reversioners of Bishan Singh. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have a right to redeem the property on payment of mortgage amount. The land measuring 16 Bigha 16 Biswa was mortgaged with possession by Bishan Singh with Kartar Singh, Chanan Singh, Gurnam Singh and Sham Singh on 8.11.1936. After consolidation, the said land Regular Second Appeal No. 4375 of 2000 [2] measures 21 Kanals 11 Marlas mortgaged for Rs.1100/-. The issue raised in the present appeal stand concluded by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in case reported as Ram Kishan and others vs. Sheo Ram and others, AIR 2008 Punjab and Haryana 77, wherein it has been held that there is no period of limitation for redemption of usufructuary mortgage. The principle that once a mortgage always a mortgage was found to be applicable in the case of usufructuary mortgage. The learned counsel for the appellants has sought to dispute the right of the plaintiffs to claim the estate of Bishan Singh on the basis of reversioners decree. The appellants cannot dispute the said aspect as the status of the appellants is that of mortgagees. As a mortgagee, it is not permissible for him to dispute inter se dispute between mortgagors. In view of the aforementioned decision of the Full Bench, the present appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in second appeal. September 02, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE