Important Points
1. The period of limitation starts the very first date of a valid mortgage. Court has only to see, whether a mortgage is valid or not. If it is valid, right to redeem to the mortgagors accrues from that very date, unless any restrain in the mortgage deed is provided specifying restriction under it.
2. To avail the benefit of fresh period of limitation under Section 18(1) of the Limitation Act, the acknowledgment must have to be an acknowledgment made before the expiry of time limit prescribed for filing suit.

Headnote:Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -Sections 59 and 60 read with Section 18(1) of the Limitation Act -Redemption of mortgage-Limitation-Oral mortgage for Rs. 53 in 1893 - Original mortgagee sold mortgage right by registered deed in 1960 acknowledging existence of mortgage-Redemption suit filed in 1980-Oral mortgage valid as possession given to mortgagor-Limitation for redemption started from very day of mortgage as there was no contrary agreement-Acknowledgment of existence of mortgage after expiry of time limit for redemption does not revive limitation-Suit barred by limitation.
       Held : Admittedly, the land in the suit was mortgaged with possession for Rs. 53/- in March 1893. Hence, a valid mortgage came into existence on the very day of its execution. In view of this, it held that the period of limitation of redemption of the land in suit started on that very date of the execution and thus period of 60 years is to be counted from March 1893, hence the suit is barred by time. (Para 5)
       The period of limitation starts the very first date of a valid mortgage. Court has only to see, whether a mortgage is valid or not. If it is valid, right to redeem to the mortgagors accrues from that very date, unless any restrain in the mortgage deed is provided specifying restriction under it. (Para 10)
       Section 18, sub-section (1), itself starts with the words “Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made.....”. Thus, the acknowledgment, if any, has to be prior to the expiration of the prescribed period for filing the suit, in other words, if the limitation has already expired, it would not revive under this Section. It is only during subsistence of a period of limitation, if any, such document is executed, the limitation would be revived afresh from the said date of acknowledgment. (Para 8)
       The submission that right to redeem only accrues when either mortgagors tender the amount of mortgage or the mortgagee communicate satisfaction of the mortgage amount through the usufruct from the land is misconceived, as aforesaid, if this interpretation is accepted, then till this happens the period of limitation never start running and it could go on for an infinite period. We have no hesitation to reject this submission. The language recorded above makes it clear that right of redemption accrues from the very first day unless restricted under the mortgage deed. When there is no restriction mortgagors have a right to redeem the mortgage from that very date when the mortgage was executed. Right accruing means, right either existing or coming into play thereafter. Where no period in the mortgage is specified, there exist a right to a mortgagor to redeem the mortgage by paying the amount that very day in case he receives the desired money for which he has mortgaged his land or any day thereafter. This right could only be restricted through law or in terms of a valid mortgage deed. There is no such restriction shown or pointed out. Hence, in our considered opinion the period of limitation would start from the very date the valid mortgage is said to have been executed hence the period of limitation of 60 years would start from the very date of oral mortgage that would be from March, 1893. In view of this, we do not find any error in the decision of the first Appellate Court or the High Court holding that the suit of the present appellants is time barred. (Para 12)
       (ii) Limitation Act, 1963-Section 18(1) - Fresh limitation on acknowledgment - Acknowledgment has to be prior to expiration of prescribed time limit for filing suit-Acknowledgment after time limit expired does not extend limitation period.
       Held : Section 18, sub-section (1), itself starts with the words “Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made.....”. Thus, the acknowledgment, if any, has to be prior to the expiration of the prescribed period for filing the suit, in other words, if the limitation has already expired, it would not revive under this Section. It is only during subsistence of a period of limitation, if any, such document is executed, the limitation would be revived afresh from the said date of acknowledgment. (Para 8)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment in Sampuran Singh & Ors. vs. Smt. Niranjan Kaur & Ors.:

Validity of Oral Mortgage: An oral mortgage executed in March 1893 for Rs. 53/- with delivery of possession was held to be valid under the law applicable at that time (prior to the extension of the Transfer of Property Act), meaning the mortgage came into existence on the very day of its execution. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Start of Limitation Period: The period of limitation for the right of redemption starts from the very first date of a valid mortgage unless there is a specific restriction in the mortgage deed. Since no restriction existed, the 60-year limitation period began in March 1893, making the suit filed in 1980 time-barred. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Ineffectiveness of Acknowledgment: An acknowledgment of liability made after the expiration of the prescribed period for filing a suit does not revive or extend the limitation period. Section 18(1) of the Limitation Act requires the acknowledgment to be made before the expiration of the prescribed period. (!) (!) (!)
Specific Facts of Acknowledgment: The original mortgagees acknowledged the existence of the mortgage via a registered sale deed dated 11th January 1960. However, since the limitation period had already expired in 1953 (March 1893 + 60 years), this acknowledgment in 1960 could not revive the limitation. (!) (!) (!)
Rejection of "Right to Redeem" Theory: The argument that the right to redeem only accrues when the mortgagor tenders payment or the mortgagee communicates satisfaction through usufruct is rejected; such an interpretation would allow the limitation period to run indefinitely. The right accrues from the date of mortgage execution. (!) (!) (!)
Irrelevance of Other Cases: The doctrine of election (approbate and reprobate) and the C. Beepathumma case regarding usufructuary mortgages do not apply to support the revival of limitation in this specific oral mortgage case. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Statutory Limitation Period: The applicable period of limitation for redeeming a mortgaged property was 60 years from the date the right to recover possession accrued, not 30 years. (!) (!) (!) (!)
Outcome: The appeal filed by the mortgagors (appellants) seeking redemption of the suit land was dismissed as the suit was barred by limitation. (!) (!)

Judgment

Misra, J.-The only question raised by the learned counsel for the mortgagor-appellants is and, that is, what is also decided by the courts below is whether his suit for redemption is barred by time? This is a case of oral mortgage executed in the year 1893 for a sum of Rs. 53/- and further, a question is raised, whether fresh period of limitation would revive from 11st January, 1960, on which date the original mortgagee sold his mortgagee right by a registered deed to the respondents, who acknowledge the existence of the mortgage in question?

2. To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to refer to the following short facts of this case. The suit land comprising of 37 kanals 15 marlas in Khewat No. 260, Khatauni No. 448, Rect. No. 45, Killa No. 14 (8-0), 19 (8-0), 21 (5-15), 22 (8-0) situated in village Sambhli, Tehsil and District Karnal (Haryana) was originally mortgaged by Rekha and others for a sum of Rs. 53/- in favour of Bakhatwara, Raju and Matu S/o Sahu on 21st March 1893. Mutation was sanctioned. Subsequently, on 11th January, 1960, the mortgagee-Matu s/o Raju and Smt. Dasondha Wd/o Parsa D/o Sahu sold their mortgagee rights vide registered sale deed in the even date to the respondents.

3. On the other hand, the appellants had purchased the suit land in the year 1959 from the original mortgagor-Rakha and others vide three separate registered sale deeds. According to the appellants till 196-61 it were the mortgagors who remained in possession of the suit land and were getting the same cultivated through their tenants. The appellants state that since in the year 1960 the original mortgagees had acknowledged the original mortgage, therefore, a fresh period of limitation for redemption of the mortgage in question begun to run from 11th January, 1960 and prayed for possession by way of redemption on payment of Rs. 53/-.

4. On these facts, the appellants filed the present suit in the year 1980 for possession by way of redemption of the suit land as against the respondents. The respondents contested the suit and raised preliminary objections that the present suit is hopelessly time barred and also raised other objections which are not necessary to refer, as both the parties pressed only issue of limitation not only before us but even when the matter was before the courts below. Respondents’ case is that they are in possession of the suit property as owners as their predecessor-in-interest mortgages with possession transferred their entire right by means of registered sale deed dated 11th January, 1960 to the respondents, as aforesaid. At that time there was no agreement in subsistence as originally mortgagees became owners. As stated earlier, the original oral mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 53/-.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit for redemption on payment of Rs. 53/- and held that the suit is within time and hence they have right to redeem the mortgage. The trial Court held that the suit is within time by holding that the acknowledgment by the respondents on behalf of the original mortgagees vide sale deed dated 11th January, 1960, a fresh period of limitation starts from the date of this deed. It further placed reliance in the case of Inder Singh & Ors. v. Mst. Kishno & Ors.1, to hold that the period of limitation would only run after expiry of 12 years from the date of mortgage, in cases of unregistered mortgage. Since the present case is also a case of unregistered mortgage it held that such mortgage and possession would only become valid after a period of 12 years from the date of such mortgage. The present oral mortgage in question was of the year 1893 thus the limitation would only start after 12 years of this date which would be in the year 1905 and adding 60 years from this, the limitation for filing suit would only expire in the year 1965 and since there is acknowledgment by the mortgagees on 11th January, 1960, as aforesaid, a fresh limitation starts from this date hence the suit is within limitation.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 238

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009