IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 5 of 2000. Date of Decision :05.07. 2011. Lachhman Singh ….Appellant. Versus. Manti Devi and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant : Mr. K.S. Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 14. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal arises out of the concurrent findings in the judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff- appellant herein claiming a decree for declaration. The plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for declaration praying that he and proforma defendants No. 15 to 17 have become owners of land comprised in Khewat No. 2 measuring 98 bighas 17 biswas situated in village Madhana, Tehsil Paonta Sahib as described in the jamabandi for the year 1988-89 and also for the recovery of possession of land comprised in khasra Nos. 118, 95, 109, 107 measuring 3 bighas 13 biswas comprised in Khewat No.2, Khatauni No. 11, 12, 13 and 14 as descried in the jamabandi for the year 1988-89 against the defendants No.1 to 14. 2. On the settled issues, the learned trial Court declined to grant decree as prayed for holding that no decree of 2 declaration could be granted as the suit for declaration simplicitor is not maintainable. 3. In the Appellate Court, the decree was upheld holding that the right to the mortgagee of having become a owner of the land by the afflux of time could not be granted on the proved facts. 4. The appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the suit for declaration after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed in Article 61 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by the plaintiff that he has become owner of the mortgaged land is maintainable when the mortgagors did not file any suit for redemption of the mortgage land within the period of limitation prescribed in law? 5. This question need not to be discussed in detail any further, as the Supreme Court in Harbans versus Om Parkash and others, AIR 2006 SC 686 has held that no limitation applies to the right of mortgagor to redeem the property and this decision has been followed by this Court in RSA No. 415 of 1998, Smt. Jaswan Kaur and others versus Des Raj and others, decided on 2.12.2009. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court no question arises for determination in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (Dev Darshan Sud), 5th July, 2011. Judge. (jai)