1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. :: J U D G M E N T :: D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W)NO.856/2006 Ram Narain & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT :: 23-01-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA Mr. B.L. Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. R.K. Agarwal, for the appellant. Mr. K.K. Mehrishi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Harsh Kulshrestha, for the respondents. A suit for redemption of mortgage and consequential reliefs filed by present respondent nos.2 to 12 against the present appellants was decreed by the trial revenue Court namely, the Assistant Collector, Bundi on 21.9.1976. Aggrieved thereby, the present appellants preferred appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 9.11.1979. The concurrent orders of Assistant Collector and the Revenue Appellate Authority were assailed by the present appellants before the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan but they were unsuccessful there; the concurrent orders were not interfered and the appeal came be dismissed on 4.4.1988. The three concurrent orders of Revenue Courts were put in issue by the present appellants by filing writ petition before this Court. The Single Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition on 11.7.2006. Aggrieved thereby, the present special appeal has been preferred by the 2 original defendants. Three fold contention was advanced by Mr. Bajrang Lal Sharma, Senior counsel in assailing the concurrent orders namely (one) that the mortgage was required to be compulsorily registered under the Bundi State Registration and Chouthan Abolition Act; (two) that the suit for redemption of mortgage was barred by time, particularly in view of the provisions contained in civil laws applicable in the Bundi State and (three) that the appellants have acquired title by adverse possession. None of the contentions has any merit. During the course of argument before us, the senior counsel for the appellants did not dispute that the mortgage was oral coupled with delivery of possession. Obviously, in view thereof when the mortgage has not been reduced in writing, the question of registration does not arise. We accordingly overrule the first contention. With regard to the plea of limitation, although reliance has been placed by the senior counsel for the appellants upon the provisions contained in civil laws as were then applicable in the State of Bundi, we find that the ground of limitation in the memo of writ petition was founded on the assumption that the provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1908 were applicable and suit for recovery of possession was required to be filed within twelve years of mortgage. Neither in the written statement nor before the Revenue Courts, any 3 plea was set up that the limitation in the subject matter was governed by civil laws of Bundi as were then applicable. We, therefore are unable to accept the submission of the senior counsel that the provisions of Bundi Act were applicable. In so far as Indian Limitation Act, 1908 is concerned, the limitation prescribed for redemption of mortgage is 60 years from the date the right to redeem accrues. The mortgage is of the Samvat year 1969 (1912 A.D.). That means, 60 years expires in the year 1972. Much before that, in the year 1963, the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 was repealed and the Limitation Act, 1963 was enacted. By virtue of Section 30, if the provisions for suit for which the prescribed period is shorter than the period prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, then the suit may be instituted within a period of seven years from the date of commencement of the Act of 1963. That the limitation prescribed in 1963 Act for redemption of mortgage is shorter than the period of limitation prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 is not in dispute as the period of 60 years has been shortened to 30 years. Thus, Section 30(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is clearly attracted and the suit could have been filed by the plaintiffs within seven years of the commencement of the Limitation Act, 1963. That the present suit has been filed by the contesting respondent(plaintiffs) within seven years from the commencement of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not in dispute as admittedly the suit has been filed in the year 1967. The finding of the Revenue Appellate Authority, the Board of Revenue and that of the Single Judge in this regard, 4 therefore, cannot be faulted. Now adverting to the plea of adverse possession, suffice it to say that the present appellant No.1 has himself admitted in the settlement proceedings in the year 1967 that the subject land was mortgaged by the plaintiffs' ancestors to his forefathers. The factum of mortgage is also admitted by the co-mortgagor. The entries in the revenue record also support that the subject land was mortgaged to the forefathers of the present appellants. When in the year 1967, the present appellant no.1 admitted that the subject land has been mortgaged by the ancestors of the plaintiffs' to his forefathers, the question of adverse possession does not arise as the appellants until the date had not claimed hostile title to that of the plaintiffs. The third contention of the senior counsel also has no merit. Appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. [R.M.LODHA],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ. Praveen