The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act in determining the validity of the plaintiff's suit as a mortgagee entitled to possession of the land.

M.L. Singhal, J. - Dalip Kaur d/o Sham Kaur d/o Roda Singh of village Smalsar, Tehsil Moga, wife of Bhagat Singh of Village Rajiwala, Tehsil Zira filed suit for declaration against Jora Singh son of Pilla Singh son of Anokh Singh alias Ghona Singh of village Smalsar to the effect that she is mortgagee with possession of land measuring 7 kanal 11 marla as detailed in the heading of the plaint situated in village Smalsar, Moga for Jamabandi of 1987-88; in the alternative, decree for possession as mortgagee. It is alleged in the plaint that land measuring 7 kanal 11 marla is the ownership of the defendant. It was mortgaged by him with possession in favour of Sham Kaur mother of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 32,200/- vide registered mortgage deed dated 3.9.86. Sham Kaur died on 16.1.89 leaving behind the plaintiff as her sole heir. Mutation of succession of Sham Kaur was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant forged a receipt after the death of Sham Kaur purporting to have been executed by Sham Kaur in token of the receipt of the redemption money and got sanctioned a mutation of redemption without the knowledge of the plaintiff in a secret and clendestine destine manner with the connivance of the revenue staff. It is alleged in the plaint that neither Sham Kaur nor the plaintiff received redemption money nor revenue officer of the rank of Assistant Collector Second grade had any jurisdiction or power to redeem the land particularly without summoning or hearing the plaintiff. Order dated 14.12.89 passed by AC Second grade is illegal ultra vires and is liable to be set aside. Plaintiff came to know about the redemption order passed by AC Second Grade at a later stage. She filed appeal before Collector, Moga which was dismissed on 30.10.92. That order is also illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff is still a mortgagee with possession.

2. Defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was urged that the suit is barred by limitation. Plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the suit. Suit is not maintainable. Plaintiff is estopped by her act and conduct from filing the suit. Plaintiff has concealed material facts from the court. It was admitted that the suit property was mortgaged with possession with Sham Kaur. Mortgage was, however, redeemed during the life time of Sham Kaur. Sham Kaur executed a valid receipt dated 4.1.89 regarding receipt of mortgage money in favour of the defendant. She also handed over the original mortgage deed to the defendant. Possession of the suit property was also delivered at the time of redemption. Since then the defendant has been owner in possession of the suit land without any encumbrance on it. Plaintiff was fully aware of mutation proceedings. She was fully aware that Sham Kaur had received the mortgage money from the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is mortgagee with possession of the suit land ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for in the plaint ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is barred by time ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her own act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD

7. Relief.

3. Vide order dated 26.7.96. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga dismissed the plaintiffs suit in view of his finding, that the mortgage was got redeemed from Sham Kaur during her lifetime by the defendant on payment of Rs. 32,200/- to her. Sham Kaur executed receipt Ex.D1 in token of the receipt of Rs. 32,200/- as mortgage money from Zora Singh. It was found that the fact that possession was with the defendant implies that possession was delivered to him by the mortgagee after she had received the mortgage money and redeemed the mortgage. It was found that the suit was barred by limitation Plaintiff should have filed suit wi