Bachint Singh vs Nasib Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

C.M. No. 1647-C of 2011:

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 50 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

C.M. No. 1648-C of 2011:

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 99 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Appeal:

Bachint Singh - one of the three legal representatives of the original Plaintiff Shamsher Singh (since deceased), having remained unsuccessful in

both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal.

Plaintiff Shamsher Singh alleged that the suit land was mortgaged in favour of his predecessor-in-interest by way of different mortgages by

predecessor-in-interest of Defendant No. 1 and accordingly, the Plaintiff became mortgagee and Defendant No. 1 became mortgagor. The Plaintiff

claimed that since the mortgages were not redeemed within limitation period of thirty years, the Plaintiff had become absolute owner of the suit land

and sought declaration accordingly along with permanent injunction.

Defendants, while admitting the factor of mortgages, made counter claim for redemption thereof. It was pleaded that there is no limitation period

for redemption of unsufructuary mortgage. It was also alleged that Defendants No. 2 and 3 are transferees of the suit land and have stepped into

the shoes of mortgagors.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar, vide judgment and decree dated 01.06.2007, dismissed the Plaintiff''s suit and decreed

the counter-claim of the Defendants. First appeal preferred by Bachint Singh - one of the legal representatives of Plaintiff, has been dismissed by

learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 09.04.2010. Feeling still aggrieved, Bachint Singh

has filed the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that since the mortgages were not redeemed within the limitation period of thirty

years, the Plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit land. It was also submitted that Defendants No. 2 and 3 claimed to have purchased the suit

land from Ruhli, who herself was never owner of the suit land, and therefore, Defendants No. 2 and 3 have no right, title or interest in the suit land.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find no merit therein. Admittedly, mortgages in question were with possession i.e.

usufructuary mortgage. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan and Ors. v. Sheo Ram and Ors. reported as (2008 ) 1 PLR 1 has held

that there is no limitation period for redemption of such mortgages. Consequently, Plaintiff''s claim to have become owner of the suit land by efflux

of time, on account of non-redemption of mortgages, has been rightly negative by the courts below, in view of authoritative pronouncement by Full

Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra).

As regards of rights of Defendants No. 2 and 3, even Defendant No. 1 has admitted the sale of the suit land in favour of Defendants No. 2 and

3 by Ruhli, who is none else but mother of Defendant No. 1. Even according to Plaintiff''s version, Defendant No. 1 was mortgagor. Defendant

No. 1, however, admitted that Defendants No. 2 and 3 have stepped into the shoes of mortgagors. Consequently, Plaintiff cannot challenge the

same. Even otherwise, even if contention of counsel for the Appellant in this regard is taken into consideration, for the sake of argument alone,

even then Defendant No. 1 mortgagor would be entitled to redeem the mortgages.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for

adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.