R.S.A. No.1764 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1764 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 21 st APRIL, 2011 Saroj Bala & others .... Appellants Versus Yaad Ram & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. G. S. Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.4962-C of 2011 The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and Kuldeep Singh is ordered to be impleaded as legal representative of Kehar Singh plaintiff No.7 and persons mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application are ordered to be impleaded as legal representatives of Som Parkash plaintiff No.5 for the purpose of this appeal. Main Appeal Plaintiffs having lost in both the courts below are in second appeal. Plaintiffs' claim is that suit land was mortgaged with predecessors- in-interest of the plaintiffs vide registered mortgage dated 22.08.1881 by predecessors in interest of defendant No.1 and since the mortgage has not been redeemed, plaintiffs have become owners of the mortgaged land in suit by efflux of time. Order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the Collector for redemption R.S.A. No.1764 of 2011 (O&M) -2- of the mortgage has also been challenged in the suit. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and pleaded that he has got the mortgage redeemed vide order dated 12.12.2005 of the Collector, although there was no documentary proof of the factum of mortgage. It was also pleaded that there is no limitation period to get the mortgage redeemed. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Naagar at Jagadahri vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2009 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadahri vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Admittedly the mortgage in question was mortgage with possession of the mortgaged land i.e. usufructuary mortgage. Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan & others versus Sheo Ram & others, 2008(1) PLR, 1 has laid down that there is no limitation period for redemption of usufructuary mortgage. In view thereof, claim of the plaintiffs that they have become owners of the suit land by efflux of time on account of non-redemption of mortgage cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the appellants was at pains to submit that question whether there is any limitation period for redemption of mortgage or not has been referred to Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, presently the law as it stands, as authoritatively pronounced by Full Bench of R.S.A. No.1764 of 2011 (O&M) -3- this court in the case of Ram Kishan (Supra), is that there is no limitation period for redemption of usufructuary mortgage. I am bound by the ratio of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra). For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 21st April, 2011 'raj'