The right to redeem a usufructuary mortgage arises when the mortgagor pays or tenders the mortgage money, and the limitation period starts from that date.

1. The defendants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08th December, 1986 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, duly upheld by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 25th May, 1987, whereby suit for redemption of mortgage filed under Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgage [Punjab] Act, 1913 filed by the respondent-plaintiffs has been decreed. The substantial questions of law that arise for consideration are [i] whether the period spent in pursuing the application under Section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgage [Punjab] Act, 1913 is required to be excluded from the period of limitation for the purpose of institution of suit for redemption under Section12 of the Act?; [ii] Is there any prescribed period of limitation for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage? and if so, [iii] when does such period start running?

2. The facts may be briefly noticed.

3. Teja Singh and his six sons filed the instant suit for declaration under Section 12 of the 1913 Act, inter-alia, averring that the suit land was mortgaged with possession by Sadha Singh and Ralla Singh on 11th April, 1951 in favour of Chanan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant-defendants and the first plaintiff having purchased the same vide sale deeds dated 21st October, 1976 for a consideration, had stepped into the shoes of the original mortgagors and was entitled to seek its redemption. The plaintiff preferred an application under Section 4 of the Act for redemption of the suit land on payment of the mortgage amount of Rs. 999/- and 6 Annas but the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Baba Bakala dismissed their application vide order dated 7th October, 1980. The plaintiffs challenged the said order and also sought redemption of the suit land through the civil suit filed under Section 12 of the Act on 6th October, 1981, which has been decreed by the Courts below, giving rise to this second appeal.

4. One of the plea taken by the appellant-defendants is that since the suit land was mortgaged on 11th April, 1951, the civil suit for its redemption could be filed within thirty years therefrom, hence the civil suit filed in October, 1981 was barred by limitation.

5. The trial Court struck eight issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties including Issue No. 1 as to "whether the suit of the plaintiff is within time?".

6. The trial Court answered Issue No. 1 in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs for two reasons. Firstly, it held that as per the recital in the Register of Deed Writer [Ex. D1] the mortgaged land could be redeemed by Sadha Singh and Ralla Singh by the month of March, 1952 on payment of Rs. 999 and six Annas. The limitation period for redeeming the land thus started running from March, 1952, therefore, the suit filed on 5th October, 1981 was well within time. Secondly, even if the period of limitation is assumed to have commenced from the date of creation of mortgage on 11th April, 1951, yet the suit was well within limitation as the time consumed in prosecuting application under Section 4 of 1913 Act before the Assistant Collector was liable to be excluded for determining the period of limitation.

7. On merits also, the trial Court found that the respondent-plaintiffs had stepped into the shoes of the mortgagors and were entitled to redeem the land.

8. The defendants in their first appeal assailed the finding of the trial Court particularly on Issue No. 1 as to whether the civil suit was within limitation period. The first Appellate Court in Para No. 9 of its judgment observed that Issue No. 1 was quite crucial and then took notice of one of the reason assigned by the trial Court, namely, that the time spent in pursuing the redemption application before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade from 12th April, 1979 to 07th October, 1980 "has to be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act". The first Appellate Court then proceeded to hold that the suit is within time and