Mortgage--Limitation for Redemption--In the absence of any time-line, there is no limitation for seeking redemption of the land, the suit can be thrown out on account of limitation

JUDGMENT

Mr. Amit Rawal, J. (Oral):- This matter has been remanded by the Supreme Court.

2. Present regular second appeal i.e. RSA No. 253 of 1982 preferred against the judgment and decree whereby the suit seeking redemption of the mortgage dated 22.04.1947 was dismissed by the trial Court as well as appellate Court and the appeal was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 15.10.2004. The aggrieved party assailed the findings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was allocated a Civil Appeal No. 4987 of 2008 and vide order dated 12.05.2017 remitted to this Court. Order reads as under:-

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the High Court, after setting aside the impugned judgment and order, with the request to determine afresh on the question of limitation with reference to the date of mortgage and how much period was available after the enforcement of the new Act.

All other questions are kept open for determination.

The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.”

3. The facts as revealed from the plaint and the records of the Courts below are that the plaintiffs claimed the declaration of ownership of the suit land to be redeemed or in alternative, for ordering the redemption of land on payment of Rs. 1200/- or any amount that may be fixed by the Court, by challenging the order dated 17.01.1979 of the prescribed authority passed under the Redemption of Mortgages Act, on the premise that Sewa Singh son of Jeeta Singh, Santa Singh son of Surmukh Singh and Chandu son of Uttam Singh, were owners in possession of the agricultural land comprising in Khasra No.432/273 measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas and Khasra No.434/273 measuring 24 bighas 11 biswas, total measuring measuring 27 bighas 5 biswas, situated in Village Malhari Tehsil and District Sirsa. The aforesaid land was mortgaged, vide mortgage deed dated 22.04.1947, in favour of Saidu, Wali sons of Alik Khan and Yusaf and Shafik, sons of Rugha Ali and mutation No.511, in this regard, was sanctioned on 19.11.1948. The sum secured was Rs.1200/-. Santa Singh, mortgagor, died and as per his registered Will, his inheritance, devolved upon Sewa Singh. On demise of Sewa Singh, to plaintiff Nos.3 to 9. Chandu, mortgagor also died and his inheritance went to Banta Singh, plaintiff No.1 and Bhani, plaintiff No.2, in such circumstances, plaintiffs became the mortgagors. It was averred that in July 1947, mortgagees received the entire amount and the suit property was redeemed. Owing to communal riots, they suddenly disappeared and as such, the mutation for redemption could not be entered and sanctioned. However, vide mutation No.631, the land stood redeemed on 03.06.1956, but on 04.06.1973, mutation was illegally reviewed and defendant No.1 i.e. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, was entered as owner in the suit land. The appeal against the aforementioned order of the review was filed on 09.12.1974 and the Union of India was recorded as mortgagee of the suit land. Defendant No.1 and 2, preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed. Since the land stood already redeemed, the plaintiffs were not liable to pay any mortgage amount, but in compliance of the directions of the order dated 09.12.1974, deposited the amount of Rs.1,200/- on 13.07.1976 and consequently, submitted an application to the S.D.O (Civil), exercising the powers of the Collector, under the local redemption law, for the redemption of the suit land.

4. The Collector, vide order dated 17.01.1979, dismissed redemption application, on the ground of limitation, non-joinder of the necessary parties, which was assailed in the suit. It was explained that during consolidation and settlement operations, old khasra numbers of the land referred to in para No.2 of the plaint, were changed and in lieu thereof, the land measuring 70 bighas 5 biswas