1987 Supreme(J&K) 110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
M.L. Bhat, J.
Munshi - Appellant
Versus
Hari Chand & Ors. - Respondent
CSA No. 66/1977
Decided On : 18 September, 1987
Advocate For Appellant: S.A. Salaria
Advocate For Respondent: R.S. Thakur
The right to redeem a mortgage accrues when payment is made or tendered, and not at the time of creation of the mortgage.
Headnote:
LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ART. 148 - MORTGAGE - REDEMPTION - RIGHT TO REDEEM - ACCRUES WHEN PAYMENT IS MADE OR TENDERED - NO FIXED PERIOD FOR MORTGAGE - MORTGAGOR CAN PAY MORTGAGE MONEY AT ANY TIME AND SEEK RECOVERY OF POSSESSION - SUIT NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of land mortgaged to the defendants. The defendants admitted the mortgage and raised the defense that the plaintiff's right to redeem the mortgage had extinguished as he had not exercised the same within the limitation period.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation. It held that the right to redeem a mortgage accrues when payment is made or tendered, and not at the time of creation of the mortgage. Since no fixed period was set for the mortgage, the mortgagor could pay the mortgage money at any time and seek recovery of possession. The court also held that the mortgagee had not refused to accept payment or tender offered by the mortgagor, and therefore the mortgagor's right to seek recovery of possession was not lost.
Issues: Whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Art. 148 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a limitation period of sixty years for a suit against a mortgagee to redeem or recover possession of immovable property mortgaged. The court held that the right to redeem a mortgage accrues when payment is made or tendered, and not at the time of creation of the mortgage. Since no fixed period was set for the mortgage, the mortgagor could pay the mortgage money at any time and seek recovery of possession. The court also held that the mortgagee had not refused to accept payment or tender offered by the mortgagor, and therefore the mortgagor's right to seek recovery of possession was not lost.
Final Decision: The court allowed the second appeal, reversed the judgments and decrees of the courts below, and held that the suit was not barred by limitation. The court directed the trial court to decide the suit on merits.
2. To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to give a brief resume of facts.
3. Plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of land which he had mortgaged to the other side. The suit was filed as early as on 28-2-1973 in the Munsiffs court at Basholi. It was averred in the plaint that I/3rd share of 184 knals and 8 marlas 5 was mortgaged for Rs. 300/- and a mutation was attested in favour of the mortgagee on 15th Kartik 1970 Bk. The plainttff is said to have paid Rs.75/- to defendant No.l and was ready to pay Rs.225/- to defendants 2 to 4. On payment of the said amount he was entitled to recover the possession of the said land.
4. The defendants in their written statement have admitted that they are the mortgagees of the suit land which was mortgaged to them for Rs 300/- on 11th Magh 1967 Bk. and possession was delivered to them in Rahbi 1968 Bk. They have relied on a copy of mutation which is attached with the written statement. They raised the defence that the plaintiffs right to redeem the mortgage has extinguished. It is averred that on 11 Mag, 1967 Bk the right to recover the possession had accrued to the plaintiff. Since he has not exercised the same, therefore his right to sue is extinguished and the suit is barred by time.
5. From the persual of Mutation No. 24, it appears that the mutation was effected in favour of the respondents on 15thKartik 1970 Bk. A note is entered by the concerned patwari in colum 15 of the mutation that one Narad had mortgaged his share in Rahbi 1968 Bk with Thakur Shah. Thakur Shah has admitted that he was the mortgagee. Therefore the papers be presented before the Tehsildar concerned for attesting the mutation. There is no registered deed evidencing the mortgage. However, an unregistered document said to have been written in lined script is on the file of the trial court, translation whereof in Urdu was filed on 20-10-1973. From the perusal of the Urdu translation it appears that in 1967 Bk, Rs.300/- has been paid to the ancestor of the appellant which was entered in the account books of the respondents and in lieu there of land in dispute was given on mortgage to the ancestor of the respondents on the condition that when the mortgage money will be paid, they will deliver the possession back. This document is purported to have been written in Kartik 1970 Bk. However, the mortgage is evidenced by mutation No. 24 contents whereof are given above.
6. The suit was dismissed by the courts below on the ground that it was barred by time and appellant has lost the right to recover the possession of the mortgaged property. Relationship between the parties being that of mortgagor and mortgagee as set up in the pleading is accepted by the courts below. Issues were framed and issue No. 2 reads as under:
"Whether the present suit is time barred?
This issue was taken up first and answered against the plaintiff-appellant. Finding on this issue was debated before me in this second appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the parties have relied on Art. 148 of the Limitation Act. It is contended that suit against a mortgagee to redeem or to recover possession if immovable property mortgaged is to be brought within sixty years the date when the right to redeem or recover possession accrues.
8. In the present case period of mortgage is not fixed. Mortgage is to be redeemed at the option of the mortgagor when he tenders mortgage money to the mortgagee and if mortgagee refuses to accept the said money, mortgagor will get the cause of action to file the suit for recovery of possession. If the period of mortgage was fixed, then the mortgagee was bound to return the mortgaged property to the mortgagor after the period of mortgage had expired. Law conceives usufructuary mortgage which means tha