Judgment

HEGDE, J.: The appellants in these appeals are the representatives of the mortgagees of the suit properties. The respondents in both these appeals claim to represent the interest of the mortgagors. Civil Appeal No. 1250 of 1966 arises from Suit No. 280 of 1961 in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak and Civil Appeal No. 1251 of 1966 arises from Suit No. 334 of 1961 on the file of the same judge. Both the suits were suits for redemption. The trial court dismissed both the suits on two grounds viz. (1) that Kura, the person from whom the plaintiffs claim to have purchased the rights of the mortgagors was incapable of entering into a contract as he was insane. Hence the sale deeds executed by him are void and (2) the claim for redemption in respect of the various mortgages sought to be redeemed excepting the one executed on April 26, 1912 is barred by limitation. The learned District Judge allowed the appeals and decreed both the suits excepting as regards the mortgage dated January 20, 1878. In second appeal Capoor J. of the Punjab High Court confirmed the decision of the learned District Judge. The Letters Patent Appeals filed by the appellants were summarily dismissed. Thereafter these appeals were brought after obtaining special leave from this Court.

2. Both the learned District Judge as well as the learned Judge of the High Court have concurrently come to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that Kura was insame at the time he sold the suit properties to the plaintiffs. This is a finding of fact and we see no reason to go behind it.

3. The only other ground on which the appellants are resisting the plaintiff s claim to redeem the mortgages in question is that according to them the claim for redemption is barred by limitation. For dealing with that question, it will be convenient to take up the two appeals separately.

4. In Suit No. 281, the plaintiffs sought redemption of four different mortgages. Those mortgages were said to have been executed on the following dates:

(1) April 26, 1912; (2) December 21, 1895; (3) December 18, 1901 and (4) January 20, 1879.

The original mortgage deeds or even their registration copies have not been produced. The execution of those mortgages have been sought to be proved on the basis of certain mutation proceedings. The Courts below have relied on those proceedings to prove the factum of the mortgages sought to be redeemed. The execution of those mortgages was not challenged before us. So far as the suit relating to the mortgage executed on January 20, 1878 (1879?) (property described in plaint Item No. 4), the plaintiffs sought to withdraw their suit on the ground that they are not able to prove their case on the basis of the material in their possession. The learned trial judge did not permit them to withdraw that part of their suit. He dismissed the plaintiffs claim in that regard. His judgment was upheld in appeal as well as in second appeal. That part of the plaintiffs case was not pressed before us.

5. Now coming to the mortgage said to have been executed on April 26, 1912 (the concerned property is described in plaint Item No. 1), the claim for redemption is admittedly within time as the suit was filed on November 27, 1961, the period of limitation being 60 years.

6. This leaves us with mortgages said to have been executed on December 21, 1895 (relating to plaint Item No. 2) and on December 18, 1901 (relating to plaint Item No. 3).

7. We shall first take up the mortgage said to have been executed on December 21, 1895. Prima facie the suit in respect of this property is barred by time but it is said that in view of the acknowledgment made by mortgagors under the original of Ex. P-5 dated 22-6-1906, the suit is within time. There is no satisfactory material to show that Ex. P-5 relates to the mortgage in question. It is not necessary to go into that question in detail as in our opinion, it was impermissible for the Courts below to rely on Ex. P-5 for the pur