There is no limitation to redeem a usufructuary mortgage, and the right of foreclosure does not accrue to the mortgagee in such cases.

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present regular second appeal has been maintained by the appellant, who was one of the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to “the plaintiff”), laying challenge to the judgment and decree, dated 18.07.2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 39 of 2005, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree, dated 17.05.2005, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manali, Camp at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., was dismissed upholding the findings of the learned Trial Court, whereby Civil Suit No. 108 of 2004/70 of 2004 was dismissed.

2. The key facts of the case can tersely be summarized as under:

The present case appellant, being plaintiff, alongwith other plaintiffs, has been shown in ownership of land bearing Khasras No. 608, 111 and 1133, measuring 2-3-0 bighas, situated in Phati Balh, Kothi Maharaja, Tehsil and District Kullu (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”) to the extent of half share, as mortgagees and the suit land is recorded in the ownership of the defendants (respondents herein and hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”). In fact the suit land was originally owned and possessed by Dagu and Lahullu, who were predecessors-in-interest of the defendants. On 11.05.1932 Dagu and Lahullu mortgaged the suit land with possession for Rs. 100/- in favour of one Jallu, who was predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs and mutation No. 908, dated 26.05.1932, was sanctioned. Thereafter, Jallu remained in possession of this land as mortgagee throughout his life and his son, Budh Ram, remained in possession of the suit land after the death of Jallu. After the death of Budh Ram, suit land was possessed by the plaintiffs, being his legal heirs. The suit land was not redeemed by Dagu and Lahullu during their life time and their predecessors also did not redeem the suit land. So, the suit land remained in possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessors. It was averred that half share of the suit land had not been redeemed by predecessors of the defendants, so mutation No. 162 qua the redemption is wrong. It was further averred that whole of the suit land is in possession of the plaintiffs and they have become owners of the suit land, as the predecessors of the defendants have failed to redeem the suit land within the statutory time, thus the revenue entries, which are contrary, are wrong. It was averred that taking undue advantage of wrong revenue records, defendant No. 1 and one Dhani Ram illegally sold 0-8-0 bigha of land to defendant No. 4 and the entries showing defendant No. 4 as owner-in-possession of the land are wrong and illegal. The defendants, on being requested by the plaintiffs, did not correct the revenue entries and accepted the claim of the plaintiffs. Lastly, the plaintiffs filed a suit seeking reliefs that they be declared owners-in-possession of the suit land and the defendants be restrained from causing interference in the suit land.

3. The defendants, by way of filing written statement, contested and resisted the suit of the plaintiff. They raised preliminary objections, viz., maintainability cause of action and locus standi. On merits, the defendants denied that the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in- interest remained in possession over the suit land. It has been pleaded that possession of the suit land was never delivered to Jallu by Dagu and Lahullu. The defendants admitted that Dagu and Lahullu did not redeem the suit land during their life time and half of the mortgaged land was redeemed by the legal-heirs of the deceased Dagu. Dagu and Lahullu remained in possession of the suit land and after their deaths, the land was possessed by their legal heirs and now the suit land is in possession of the defendants. As per the defendants, attestation of mutation No. 162, dated 28.07.1952, is legal and mortgage can be re