The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to file a suit for possession or foreclosure within the prescribed time limits under the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 precludes a claim to ownership and possession of mortgaged property.

Kuldip Singh, J.

The plaintiff has come in second appeal against judgment, decree dated 13.11.2000 passed by learned District Judge, High Court of H.P. Chamba, Division Chamba in Civil Appeal No.45 of 1999, reversing judgment, decree dated 31.7.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dalhousie, District Chamba in Civil Suit No.5/95. Some of the parties originally before the trial Court have died, some names have been deleted, therefore, in this judgment the parties are referred as plaintiff and defendants.

2. The plaintiff Palo Ram filed the suit for declaration that he has become owner of the land measuring 13-15 bighas, specifically described in the plaint and for possession of said land. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that suit land is entered in the name of the defendants as mortgagors and plaintiff as mortgagee as per jamabandi for the year 1989-1990. The suit land was mortgaged with the plaintiff much prior to the year 1953 before settlement. Farangu one of the owners during settlement admitted that suit land had been mortgaged to plaintiff for a consideration of `250-/ and plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. On that basis mutation was entered and attested on 10.9.1953. Farangu one of the mortgagors in the year 1967 sold his rights in the suit land to defendants No.1,2 and Chuni, who expired in the year 1984 and defendants No.1, 2 inherited the estate of Chuni. The plaintiff was in the Army in the year 1967. The possession was given by plaintiff to the mortgagors of the suit land. The defendants failed to redeem the mortgaged land within 30 years; hence plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by afflux of time.

3. The plaintiff retired from Army in the year 1984. He requested the defendants that he has become owner of the suit land. They were in possession of the suit land as mortgagors, therefore, they should hand over the possession of the suit land to plaintiff, which they failed, hence the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. The defendants No.1, 2 had filed joint written statement. They took preliminary objections of maintainability, estoppel, limitation and that plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands. On merits, the description of the suit land was admitted; it has been denied that the revenue entries do not depict true position. Farangu was not competent to make any statement on behalf of other co-sharers. The alleged mutation is illegal. Farangu had never made any statement. The defendants No.1, 2 had purchased the land from Amro and Farangu vide rapat No.167. It has been denied that plaintiff gave possession to the mortgagors in the year 1967. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land,

5. The defendants No.3 to 7 had filed separate but common written statement and took more or less same pleas as taken by defendants No.1, 2. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendants No.1 and 2 and reiterated his stand. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land by afflux of time as alleged? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as alleged? OPP

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD

5. Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands? OPD

7. Relief.

The issues No.1,2 were answered in affirmative, issues No.3 to 6 were answered in negative and the learned trial Court decreed the suit on 31.7.1999. The plaintiff was declared owner of the suit land. A decree of possession was passed in favour of the plaintiff. Gauri and Ran Singh defendants filed appeal against judgment, decree dated 31.7.1999 which was allowed by learned District Judge on 13.11.2000 and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. It has been held that prior to the year 1967 plaintiff did not remain in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff has not become owner of