1998 Supreme(Gau) 306
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J.N.Sarma, J.
Ramchandra Sahu -Appellant
Versus
Sushila Agarwal -Respondent
Second Appeal No. 42 of 1992
Decided On : 22-10-1998
T.Goswami, B.M.Sharma, B.K.Goswami
The period of limitation for redemption of a mortgage starts after the expiry of the condition provided in the deed of mortgage.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Mortgage Redemption - The court held that the suit for redemption of the mortgage is not barred by limitation as the period of limitation starts after the expiry of the condition provided in the deed of mortgage.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of a property mortgaged in 1956, beyond the 30-year limitation period. The lower courts dismissed the suit based on the limitation period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit for redemption of the mortgage is not barred by limitation as the period of limitation starts after the expiry of the condition provided in the deed of mortgage.
Issues: The substantial question of law was whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered precedents and interpretations of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that the period of limitation starts after the expiry of the condition provided in the deed of mortgage.
Final Decision: The second appeal was allowed, quashing the judgments of both the lower courts, and the suit for redemption of the mortgage was decreed.
2. The only substantial question of law formulated in this second appeal is "Whether the suit is barred by limitation?"
3.1 have heard Mr. BK Goswami, learned counsel for appellant and none appears for the respondents.
4. This aspect of the matter came up for consideration before the Privy Council in AIR 1914 PC 36 (Mt Bakhtawar Begam vs. Husaini Khanum & another).
There Privy Council was considering Article 148 of the Limitation Act, 1877 and that is almost the period of 9 years was provided for payment of the money and the Privy Council held that the right to redeem accrued after the lapse of 9 years. Same is the decision in AIR 1980 MP 111 (Smti Gulkandi & others vs. Harnarayan Phoolchand & others) where a Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered that aspect of the matter regarding the period. There, a period of one year was provided for redemption of the motgage and the Court held relying on the earlier decision of the Privy Council that the rights to redeem shall accrue only after lapse of one year and time from which the period to run will be after the lapse of one year. The same is the decision of the Patna High Court in AIR 1960 Patna 51 (Harbans Narain Singh vs. Ramdhari Mahton & others). There a mortgage was executed on 23.3.1887. Due date of redemption was 4.5.1890 and the suit was filed on 19.5.1950 and the Division Bench of Patna High Court considered Article 148 of the Limitation Act and held as follows :
"It is, therefore, clear that both in form and in substance the-suit brought by the plaintiff is a suit for redemption and so applying the provisions of Article 148 of Limitation Act the starting point of limitation would be sixty years from the date the right to redeem accrued. It is also obvious in this case that the right to redeem accrued to the plaintiff on 4.5.1890, which was the due date of redemption fixed in the usufructury mortgage bond. If that date is the starting point of limitation it follows that the suit brought by the plaintiff is barred under Article 148 of the Limitation Act."
5. In the instant case, after considering the point of limitation to be after expiry