Regular Second Appeal No. 2949 of 2001 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2949 of 2001 Date of Decision: September 02, 2009 Amrit Pal and others ......... Appellants versus Mohinder Singh and others .......... Respondents Present:- Shri Arun Jindal, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S. Toor, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for claiming declaration that the plaintiffs have become owners by efflux of time on account of failure of the defendants to redeem the suit land within a period of 30 years from the date of mortgage, was dismissed. Jagan Singh and others, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, mortgaged the suit land in favour of Raja Ram and others i.e., predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs, as per entry made in the jamabandi for the year 1960-61. An application was filed by the mortgagors to redeem the suit land which was dismissed by the Collector under The Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913, on 23.10.1962. Since the defendants have not redeemed the suit land within a period of 30 years, the present suit for declaration was filed in August, 1995. The present appeal was admitted on Regular Second Appeal No. 2949 of 2001 [2] the following substantial question of law on August 24, 2004 and was ordered to be heard after the decision in Regular Second Appeal No. 1611 of 1999. Whether the suit for redemption is within the period of limitation prescribed ? The aforesaid appeal has been decided on the basis of decision delivered by 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 and the principle once a mortgage always a mortgage is applicable to the usufructuary mortgage. In view of the aforementioned judgment of Full Bench, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaration sought for. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. September 02, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE