R. S. A. No. 602 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 602 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 23, 2011 Bachint Singh .... Appellant Vs. Nasib Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 1647-C of 2011 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 50 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No. 1648-C of 2011 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 99 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : Bachint Singh – one of the three legal representatives of the R. S. A. No. 602 of 2011 (O&M) 2 original plaintiff Shamsher Singh (since deceased), having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff Shamsher Singh alleged that the suit land was mortgaged in favour of his predecessor-in-interest by way of different mortgages by predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.1 and accordingly, the plaintiff became mortgagee and defendant no.1 became mortgagor. The plaintiff claimed that since the mortgages were not redeemed within limitation period of thirty years, the plaintiff had become absolute owner of the suit land and sought declaration accordingly along with permanent injunction. Defendants, while admitting the factum of mortgages, made counter claim for redemption thereof. It was pleaded that there is no limitation period for redemption of usufructuary mortgage. It was also alleged that defendants no.2 and 3 are transferees of the suit land and have stepped into the shoes of mortgagors. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar, vide judgment and decree dated 01.06.2007, dismissed the plaintiff's suit and decreed the counter-claim of the defendants. First appeal preferred by Bachint Singh – one of the legal representatives of plaintiff, has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 09.04.2010. Feeling still aggrieved, Bachint Singh has filed the instant second appeal. R. S. A. No. 602 of 2011 (O&M) 3 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that since the mortgages were not redeemed within the limitation period of thirty years, the plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit land. It was also submitted that defendants no.2 and 3 claimed to have purchased the suit land from Ruhli, who herself was never owner of the suit land, and therefore, defendants no.2 and 3 have no right, title or interest in the suit land. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find no merit therein. Admittedly, mortgages in question were with possession i.e. usufructuary mortgage. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan and others vs. Sheo Ram and others reported as (2008-1) The Punjab Law Reporter 1 has held that there is no limitation period for redemption of such mortgages. Consequently, plaintiff's claim to have become owner of the suit land by efflux of time, on account of non- redemption of mortgages, has been rightly negatived by the courts below, in view of authoritative pronouncement by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra). As regards of rights of defendants no.2 and 3, even defendant no.1 has admitted the sale of the suit land in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 R. S. A. No. 602 of 2011 (O&M) 4 by Ruhli, who is none else but mother of defendant no.1. Even according to plaintiff's version, defendant no.1 was mortgagor. Defendant no.1, however, admitted that defendants no.2 and 3 have stepped into the shoes of mortgagors. Consequently, plaintiff cannot challenge the same. Even otherwise, even if contention of counsel for the appellant in this regard is taken into consideration, for the sake of argument alone, even then defendant no.1 mortgagor would be entitled to redeem the mortgages. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. May 23, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE