Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral).:- The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 25.08.1982 and 29.10.1983, passed by Additional Senior Sub Judge, Rupnagar, and Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, dated, decreeing the suit filed by the respondents and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

2. On 24.04.1931, one Sardara Singh mortgaged with possession, 2/3rd share out of land measuring 15 Kanals 4 Marlas for a sum of Rs.650/-­ in favour of one Dati Sahai. After partition of the country, Sardara Singh was allotted the suit land in lieu of land left behind in Pakistan vide sale deed dated 02.11.1961 Ex.P-2/A, the mortgagee sold his rights in favour of Labh Singh, Mohinder Singh and Chanan Singh. Jaswinder Kaur, the appellant herein purchased the suit land, vide registered sale deed dated 24.05.1979, Ex.D.2. Jaswinder Kaur, allegedly redeemed 1/3rd share of the mortgaged property from Chanan Singh and thereafter applied to the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rupnagar for redemption of the balance mortgaged property. On 01.09.1980, the Assistant Collector allowed the application for redemption.

3. Labh Singh and Mohinder Singh, mortgagees filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order of redemption was illegal and void as the mortgage was not redeemed within the period of limitation prescribed under the Indian Limitation Act and as a result they had become owners of the suit property. Jaswinder Kaur contested the suit by asserting that the equity of redemption continued to subsist and, therefore, the order of redemption passed by the Assistant Collector was legal and valid.

4. The learned trial Court, after an appraisal of the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, decreed the suit by holding that as the period of limitation for redemption had expired on 30.12.1970, the application for redemption was wrongly allowed by the Collector. It was, however, held that as Dati Sahai was the original mortgagee, with respect to 2/3rd share, his legal heirs would be owners of the suit land.

5. Aggrieved by the trial Court’s judgment and decree, both parties filed separate appeals. Vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.1983, the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar dismissed the appeal filed by Jaswinder Kaur, but accepted the appeal filed by Labh Singh and Mohinder Singh and held them to be owners of the suit land, as limitation for redemption had expired by efflux of time.

6. Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned courts below have erroneously held that the application for redemption allowed by the Collector was barred by time. It is submitted that a Full Bench of this Court has held in Ram Kishan and others v. Sheo Ram and others, [2008(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (FB) 46] : 2008(1) P.L.R. 1, that limitation for redeeming a usufructuary mortgage commences from the date the mortgagor pays or tenders to the mortgagee or deposits in Court, the mortgage money or the balance thereof and not from the date of the mortgage. It is, therefore, submitted that as the trial court and the first appellate court have held to the contrary, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below be set aside. It is, urged that in view of the above judgment, the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal:­

(i) Whether the period of limitation for redeeming a usufructuary mortgage commences from the date of “mortgage?

(ii) Whether the learned courts below were right in holding that the equity of redemption stood extinguished by expiry of the period of limitation?

(iii) Whether the respondents have become owners of the suit land as limitation for redeeming the mortgage property had expired?

7. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, asserts that though he does not dispute the correctness of the law enunciated by the Full Bench, the onus to establish the nature of the mortgage lies upon the appellant. The Full Bench judgment relates to a usufructuary mortgage, where