IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4313 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision 28.07.2009 Smt.Rama and others ......Petitioners VERSUS Mohinder Paul and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.S.Bhinder, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3, 9 to 12 & 14 to 16. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This revision petition, preferred by the petitioners-defendants (herein referred as 'the petitioners') is directed against the order 03.03.2007, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Surdulgarh whereby the petitioners have been restrained from taking possession and alienating the suit land from the respondents-plaintiffs. The prima facie question is that whether by the efflux of time, the usufructuary mortgagor looses his right of being mortgagee. The similar question came before the Full Bench of this Court wherein their lordships in case Ram Kishan and others vs. Sheo Ram and others 2008 (1) Civil Court Cases 414 (Punjab & Haryana) (Full Bench) observed as under:- “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 would 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 Civil Revision No.4313 of 2008 (O&M) -2- mortgage money or the balance thereof. Thus, it is held that once a mortgage always a mortgage and is always redeemable.” The grievance of the petitioners is not regarding the possession but they state that since they are still the owners of the property, therefore, no injunction regarding alienation could be granted against them and the learned Appellate Court erred in granting injunction regarding alienation. In view of the aforesaid judgment of Ram Kishan and others vs. Sheo Ram and others Judgment (supra), the petitioners are still prima facie owners of the property, therefore, they have every right to transfer the same, subject to mortgage money. Anyway, any transfer if made by the petitioners during the pendency of the suit would be governed by principles of lis-pendens. This proposition was dealt with by this Court in case Sonki and another vs. Gurnam Singh and others 2006 (2) Civil Court Cases 630 (P&H) wherein it was observed that sale if any effected during the pendency of the suit shall be hit by doctrine of lis pendens and thus will not affect the rights of plaintiffs/respondents. As such, the trial Court appears to have not dealt with the proposition considerably. Consequently, I partly allow this petition and vacate the injunction regarding alienation. However, the alienation if any made by the petitioners would suffer from the principle of lis pendens. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 28.07.2009 mamta-II