RSA No. 585 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 585 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.4.2011. Navdeep Singh & others .......Appellants Vs. Bant Singh & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. M.S.Rakkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.S.Baath, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M.J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the respondents. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that Gajjan Singh and Hazura Singh were owners in possession of the suit property measuring 12 Kanals. The ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 8, 9, 10 and 11 had mortgaged the suit land with Bakhashi Singh, Dial Singh and defendants Mohan Singh, Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh and Chanan Singh for a sum of ` 500/- with possession. The ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 8 to 11 had since died and the property was still under mortgage with mortgagees. The plaintiffs were entitled to get the land redeemed on payment of the mortgage amount of RSA No. 585 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ` 500/-. The defendants had failed to redeem the land after accepting the mortgage amount. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 1 to 3, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. The factum of mortgage as alleged in the plaint was denied. It was averred that the plaintiffs had no concern with the suit property. Remaining defendants were proceeded exparte. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner of the suit land? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the said land redeemed as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff are entitled to the possession of the suit land? OPP 4. Whether the defendants are in possession of the suit land as prayed for? OPD 5. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPD 5A. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5B. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder for necessary parties? OPD 5C. Whether defendants No. 1 & 2 are entitled to special cost under section 35A CPC? OPD 6. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2008, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. RSA No. 585 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No. 1 to 3 preferred an appeal and the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), vide judgment and decree dated 8.10.2009, disposed of the same with the modifications that plaintiffs- respondents were entitled for preliminary decree for possession after redemption within three months from the date of judgment and decree. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. 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 mortgage money or the balance thereof. Thus, it is held that once a mortgage always a mortgage and is always redeemable.” As per the revenue record, available on the file, Gajjan Singh and Hazura Singh were shown as mortgagors, whereas Dial Singh, Bakhashi Singh, Mohan Singh, Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh and Chanan Singh were reflected as mortgagees to the extent of their shares. Although, there is no mortgage deed on record but from the revenue record, it is evident that the land had been mortgaged by Gajjan Singh and Hazura Singh to Dial RSA No. 585 of 2010 (O&M) -4- Singh and others. The case of the plaintiffs was that mortgage amount was to the tune of ` 500/-. The defendants on the other hand failed to lead any evidence to the contrary. Since there was nothing on the record to suggest that any time limit had been fixed qua redemption of the mortgaged land, the same could be got redeemed at any time by the mortgagors, after paying the mortgage amount. Hence, the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 06, 2011 Gurpreet