The main legal point established is that there is no limitation for redeeming a usufructuary mortgage, and the claim of ownership by efflux of time must be supported by clear evidence of redemption.

Kuldip Singh, J.-This appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 11.9.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Una in Civil Appeal No. 23/91, 47/91 RBT. No.198/94 allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment, decree dated 1.2.1991 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class (I), Una in Case No. 59 of 1985.

2. The facts, in brief, are that one Jagdish Ram predecessor of respondents 1(a) to 1(j) had filed a suit against appellants, Kishan Chand predecessor of respondents No.2 to 6 and respondents No.7 to 14 for declaration that he has become owner of land measuring 11 kanals 1 marla situated at village Samoor Khurd, Tappa Momaniar, Tehsil Bangana, District Una as per jamabandi 1982-83 more specifically detailed in the plaint by lapse of time, extinguishment and foreclosure of right of equity of redemption, appellants, Kishan Chand and respondents No.7 to 14 have no right and interest in the suit land. The consequential relief of permanent injunction was also prayed.

3. The further pleaded case is that Pala and Ram Saran owners of the suit land had mortgaged their rights in the land owned and possessed by them with Ralloo, Wazira and Govind prior to the year 1920. The mortgagees had sold their mortgagees rights in favour of Pohlo S/o Gori, Thakur, Kishnoo in the year 1925 and mutation No. 143 dated 8.6.1925 was sanctioned. Pohlo etc. vendees of mortgagees rights sold their mortgagees rights in favour of Pohlo Ram S/o Hamira, Basanta Ram, Batna and delivered possession to them and mutation No.360 dated 30.4.1956 was attested in their favour. Jagdish Ram predecessor of respondents 1(a) to 1(j) had purchased the share of Thakur Dass and Kishnoo in the khata through registered sale deeds. Jagdish Ram became co-sharer of the suit land in the khata.

4. Pala original mortgagor died and Ralli his widow succeeded to his estate as mortgagor. Rali sold her right of equity of redemption in the land to appellants No.1 to 4, late Kishan Chand and respondents 7 to 11 through different transactions, thus appellants, late Kishan Chand and respondents No.7 to 14 became mortgagors. Basanta Ram, Pohlo Ram and Batna vendees of the mortgagees rights sold their rights in favour of Jagdish Ram orally and delivered possession on 18.7.1961 and mutation No.391 was sanctioned in his favour and he became mortgagee in possession of the suit land. The suit land mentioned in sub paras (i), (ii) of the plaint was jointly recorded in favour of appellants, late Kishan Chand and respondents No.7 to 14 as mortgagors as per their shares, land referred in sub para No. (iii) of the plaint was recorded in the name of appellants as mortgagors and land mentioned in sub para (iv) was recorded in the name of late Kishan Chand and respondents No.7 to 14 as mortgagors due to some arrangement and private partition. Jagdish Ram recorded as mortgagee with possession.

5. It was further pleaded that original mortgage took place in the year 1920 and the same was not redeemed by appellants, late Kishan Chand and respondents No.7 to 14 and they have lost their right by efflux of time, extinguishment and foreclosure of right of equity of redemption. Jagdish Ram had become its owner. The appellants, late Kishan Chand and respondents No.7 to 14 had threatened to redeem the land and, therefore, the suit was filed.

6. The appellants contested the suit. It was denied that mortgage was created in favour of Jagdish Ram in the year 1961. It was denied that Jagdish Ram had purchased the rights of mortgagees. They asserted their possession on the suit land. It was pleaded that even if mortgage as alleged is proved and Jagdish Ram had acquired mortgagees rights by purchase in that case also Jagdish Ram was not entitled for the relief of declaration as the mortgage was acknowledged by Jagdish Ram and his predecessor on various dates. Kishan Chand predecessor of respondents No. 2 to 6 and respondents 7 to 14 admitted the claim of Jagdish Ram. On the pleadings of the parties