1. This Second Appeal challenges the orders of both the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court by which the appellant’s suit has been dismissed. When the appeal was admitted, the following substantial questions were raised:

“Whether the plaintiffs i.e. the appellants are entitled to exemption of the Limitation Act in view of the provisions of the Order 7 Rule 6 of the CPC?”

“Whether the deed of 16.1.1967 is a mortgage deed and the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the mortgage at any time since the mortgage deed was not registered under the Registration Act, 1908?”

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

One Sitaram Tare was the owner of the suit land bearing Survey No.13/1 and Survey No.17, Hissa No.12 in Wadvali Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. Sitaram mortgaged these lands with Respondent No.1 on 16.1.1967 for an amount of Rs.1500/-. Sitaram required the money for his son’s marriage and it was agreed between the parties that the mortgage could be redeemed within 5 years. Admittedly, the mortgage deed has not been registered under the Registration Act. Sitaram expired in 1975.

3. On 8.3.1982, the appellants, who are the heirs and legal representatives of Sitaram, called upon the respondents not to obstruct their possession of the suit lands. The respondents by his letter of 17.3.1982 informed them that Sitaram had mortgaged the suit lands with him and therefore, they had no right over those lands since Sitaram had failed to redeem the lands within five years as agreed. On 26.5.1982, the appellants called upon the respondents to accept Rs.1,500/- and to hand over possession of the suit lands. The respondent refused to comply with the request of the appellants and therefore, the appellants instituted RCS No.535 of 1982 before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kalyan on 29.1.1982. This suit was filed for redeeming the land on repayment of Rs.1500/- to the defendant i.e. the respondent herein.

4. In his written statement, the respondent denied that the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the suit lands. He contended that the mortgage could not be redeemed after so many years when the parties had agreed that it could be redeemed only within five years.

5. The trial Court held after the evidence was recorded that the plaintiffs i.e. the appellants herein had proved that they were the heirs of Sitaram. They had also proved that Sitaram had mortgaged the property for Rs.1500/- to the respondent and that he had parted with possession of the suit property. However, the trial Court denied the plaintiffs the relief of redemption of the mortgage since the suit had not been filed within the period of limitation. The trial Court also construed the deed of 16.1.1967 as a mortgage by conditional sale.

6. Mr.Mandlik, the learned advocate for the appellants, submits that a suit for redemption of a mortgage is required to be filed within 30 years from the date fixed for redemption of the mortgage. He submits that since the deed of mortgage is not registered in accordance with The Registration Act, 1908 it can be enforced at any point in time and the appellants were entitled to the exemption from the law of limitation under Order 7 Rule 6. The learned advocate then submits that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit land as the defendant has no title or interest of any nature in the suit land and, therefore, is not entitled to remain in possession of the same. The learned advocate then relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Devidas Krishna Salunke vs. Tanubai w/o. Vasudeo Ghogare, (1999(1) Mh.L.J. 616) in support of his submission that since the plaintiffs’ claim for possession was based on title and not on the ground of dispossession, the suit was governed by the limitation prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The learned advocate further submits that since no claim for adverse possession had been made by the def