RSA No. 111 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.111 of 2009 Decided on : 19-03-2009 Munshi ....Appellant VERSUS Ganpat and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.C.Markan, Advocate with Mr. Mikhail, Advocate for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 31.3.2008 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 30.9.2008. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for the declaration to the effect that he has become owner in possession of the suit property which had been mortgaged by the respondents with him for a consideration of Rs.500/- on 6.7.65. The mortgage was with possession and accordingly the mutation was sanctioned in the revenue records. It was further the case of the appellant that the mortgage was not redeemed within a period of 30 years and therefore, he had become the owner of the property. The respondents contested the suit and pleaded that the land already stood redeemed and further pleaded that the period of 30 years had RSA No. 111 of 2009 2 no relevance as there was no limitation for redeeming the land. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property as mentioned in para no.1 to the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit?OPD. 3. Relief. Both the Courts concluded that the land had not been redeemed. But went on to held that the mortgage was usufructuary in nature and no time limit was prescribed for its redemption and consequently it could not be held that the appellant had become the owner of the suit property. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings, present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant to contend that the findings recorded by both the Courts are perverse. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that a categoric finding has been returned by both the Courts below that the land was not redeemed and once that finding was returned then considering the fact that the mortgage was anamalous in nature and not usufructuary, the period of limitation of 30 years would certainly become relevant in considering the ownership of the appellant. The respondents are on caveat. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that mortgage was usufructuary in nature as can be inferred from the fact that the land was mortgaged with the appellant for a sum of Rs.500/- but no time limit was prescribed for redeeming the same. In this view of the matter, findings cannot be termed to be perverse or erroneous. RSA No. 111 of 2009 3 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgements. The mortgage deed is not on record. There is no material or evidence from where it could be inferred that the nature of the mortgage was of any other kind other than that of usufructuary. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding that mortgage was for a sum of Rs.500/- which was also the pleaded case of the appellant. There is no material from where it could be inferred that the mortgage was anamalous in nature as pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant. Concededly the settled principle of law is that in a usufructuary mortgage, no time limit is prescribed for its redemption and therefore, the respondents were very well within their rights to redeem the same. In this view of the matter, findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse so as to warrant any interference in regular second appeal. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. March 19, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge