IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2007 Rasul Nabi Shaikh since deceased through his legal heirs Tahir Rasul Shaikh & Ors. ...... ...... ...... Appellants V/s Kasam Chand Shaikh since deceased through his legal heirs Abeda K. Asam Shaikh & Ors. ...... ...... ...... Respondents. Mr.Anilkumar Patil, Adv. For the appellants. Mr.Machhindra Deshmukh h/f Mr.Milind Deshmukh, Adv. For R.Nos.1A & 1B. CORAM: R.V. MORE, J. 8th DECEMBER, 2008. PC: Heard learned advocates for respective parties. The predecessors-in-title of the appellant were the original defendants and predecessors-in-title of the respondent were the original plaintiffs. Suit was filed for redemption of mortgage. The trial Court dismissed the suit and therefore respondent preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate court after hearing both the sides allowed the appeal and granted redemption decree in favour of respondents. Mr.Patil, learned advocate for the appellants made two fold submissions. Firstly that the suit is not within limitation and secondly that the transaction in question was out right sale. So far as the first submission regarding limitation is concerned the mortgage deed was admittedly executed on 12.12.1946. Under clause 3 of the mortgage deed the mortgagor 1 was at liberty to return the mortgage value within a period of 10 years. In that view of the matter, in my considered view the limitation will start after expiry of 10 years from execution of the mortgage deed. Suit was filed in the year 1979 i.e. Within period of 30 years from 12.12.56 and therefore this submission is devoid of any substance. Mr.Patil in this regard relied upon Apex Court judgment reported in the case of Sampuran Singh v/s Niranjan Kaur, AIR 1999 SC 1047. The ratio of this decision cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in as much as in the case before the Hon' ble Apex Court there was an oral mortgage. 2. The second submissions that transaction in question is out right sale has also no merit. The document in question is described as “Kudat Kharedi Patra” which means a conditional sale. The phraseiology used in the document is “Sodvun Gheu” that means get redeemed. The period of redemption mentioned in the document is 10 years. In view of above, in my considered opinion, the lower appellate court rightly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. Hence second appeal stands dismissed. In view of dismissal or second appeal civil application No.1462/07 does not survive and the same also stands disposed of. 3. At this stage Mr.Patil, learned advocate for the appellants prays for stay of the impugned order for a period of eight weeks. Mr.Deshmukh opposes this prayer. In my view interest of justice 2 will be served if the impugned judgment and order is stayed for a period of six weeks from today. Order accordingly. 8.12.08 (R.V. MORE, J.) 3