RSA No.2852 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2852 of 2007 Date of Decision: 03.02.2010. Ramesh and others .……Appellants Versus Surat and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. J. S. Dhaiya, Advocate for the respondents. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendants have filed the instant second appeal. Respondents filed civil suit seeking declaration that they have become owners of the suit land and defendants have no right, title or interest therein because mortgage of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs was not redeemed within limitation period. The plaintiffs also challenged order dated 19.12.2003 passed by Collector, Sonepat allowing redemption of mortgage of suit land on redemption application filed by the defendants under the provisions of the Punjab Redemption of Mortgages Act. Admittedly, the mortgage was with possession of the mortgaged land i.e usufructuary mortgage. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 20.09.2006 held that no limitation period applies to right of mortgagor to redeem mortgage of the mortgaged property and such mortgage can be redeemed at any time. Accordingly, suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial RSA No.2852 of 2007 -2- Court. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed by learned District Judge, Sonepat vide judgment and decree dated 04.06.2007 thereby declaring the plaintiffs to be owners of the suit land and holding the redemption order dated 19.12.2003 passed by Collector, Sonepat to be illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. The instant second appeal was admitted to determine the following substantial question of law:- “ Whether the right of a mortgagor to redeem a usufructuary mortgage can be defeated by the efflux of time?'' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan and others versus Sheo Ram and others, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 334 has laid down that the mortgagees cannot seek declaration that they have become owners of the mortgaged land on account of non-redemption of the mortgage within limitation period 60 years (under Limitation act, 1908) or 30 years (under Limitation Act, 1963), when no period for payment of mortgage amount was fixed. This judgment fully answers the aforesaid substantial question of law in favour of the appellants herein. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, relied on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakaran and others versus M. Azhagiri Pillai (Dead) by LRs.and others, 2006 (2)RCR (Civil) 428. However, this judgment of Hon'ble Supreme RSA No.2852 of 2007 -3- Court has been duly taken note of, considered and discussed by Full Bench in the case of Ram Kishan (supra). In view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra), substantial question of law framed in the instant second appeal is answered in the negative i.e in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and decree dated 04.06.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Sonepat are set aside and judgment and decree dated 20.09.2006 passed by the trial Court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, are restored. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 03.02.2010 A. Kaundal