RSA No. 480 of 1999 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 480 of 1999 Date of Decision: 8.10.2009 Sadhu Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Bachan Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Kashmir Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri S.C. Khunger, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiffs have become owners of the land measuring 29 klanals 2 marlas on account of failure of the mortgagor- defendants to redeem the land, was dismissed in appeal. The land in question was mortgaged with possession by defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff-appellants for the sum of Rs.3925/- vide mortgage deed dated 1.5.1957. It is asserted that since the suit land was not redeemed by the mortgagor-defendants RSA No. 480 of 1999 (O&M) [2] within the stipulated period of 30 years, therefore, the plaintiffs have become owners of the land by efflux of time. Learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit property by efflux of time. But, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside by the learned first Appellate Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Panchanan Sharma v. Basudeo Prasad Jaganani, AIR 1995 SC 1743 and the judgment of this Court in Harbans v. Om Parkash, 1998(1) PLR 678. The issue raised in the present appeal is concluded by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Kishan and others v. Sheo Ram and others, 2008(1) PLR page 1, wherein it has been held that in the case of usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagee is not entitled to declaration that he has become owner by efflux of time for the failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property within the period of limitation. It was held that in such kind of mortgage, the principle `once mortgage always is a mortgage', is applicable. In view of the said judgment, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 8-10-2009 ds