The main legal point established in the judgment is that in the case of a usufructuary mortgage, the right of redemption arises when the mortgagor pays or tenders the mortgage money or deposits it in court, and that the right to redeem continues until the mortgage money is paid, with no time limit for redemption.

JUDGMENT :

Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.

1. Present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the impugned judgment & decree dated 17.01.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala whereby an appeal of the defendants-respondents (cross-objectors) was partly allowed and the judgment & decree dated 28.10.1993 of learned Additional Senior Sub Judge Ambala, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs appellants for redemption of land pertaining to mutation Nos.333, 334, 447 and 790 was set aside.

2. Respondents/defendants are in cross-objections against the same very impugned judgment & decree dated 17.01.1997, whereby their claim regarding mutation No.879 was declined and decree of learned trial Court to that extent was maintained.

3. It is noteworthy that Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2019) 7 SCC 219 titled as “Kirori (since deceased) through his LRs. Vs. Ram Parkash and others” has held that framing of substantial question of law by this Court while deciding the regular second appeal by this Court is not required.

4. At the outset, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as “Singh Ram vs. Sheo Ram (2014), 9 SCC 185” and thus the impugned judgment & decree passed by learned first Appellate Court qua mutation No. 333, 334, 447 and 790 is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondents is also not able to dispute the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the point of limitation for usufructuary mortgage as well as applicability of the same to the facts of the present case.

6. Paper book reveals that the appellants filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of land comprising in Khewat/Khatauni No.108/111, Khasra No.39/1 (7-8), 2 (8-00), 3/1 (2-12), 8/2 (6-4), 9/1 (6-8), 10/1 (1-11) & 54/11 (8-0), total measuring 40 Kanal 13 Marlas situated in Village Rampur, Tehsil and District Ambala as per the Jamabandi for the year 1978-79, on payment of Rs.1600/- being mortgage money. Suit was contested by the respondents, but the same was decreed as prayed for by learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 28.10.1993 and the appellants were directed to pay the mortgage money of Rs.1600/- on or before 28.12.1993 and in that eventuality, the respondents were mandated to transfer the land in dispute to the appellants.

7. Undisputedly, an amount of Rs.1600/- in terms of the decree of learned trial Court was deposited by the appellants within the stipulated period.

8. Aggrieved against the judgment & decree passed by learned trial Court, the respondents preferred an appeal and the same was partly allowed qua mutation Nos. 333, 334, 447 and 790 on the point of limitation being beyond 30 years in a usufructuary mortgage vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.01.1997, but the decree regarding the remaining land i.e. mutation No.879 was affirmed.

9. Appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court whereby their claim was invalidated qua mutation Nos. 333, 334, 447 and 790; whereas the respondents are in cross-objections qua rejection of relief regarding mutation No.879.

10. This Court on 24.10.2009 passed the following order:-

“Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate and

Mr. RPS Ahluwalia, Advocate,

for the appellants.

Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. G.S. Benipal, Advocate,

for the respondents.

Learned senior counsel for the appellants had placed reliance on decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Kishan and others v. Sheo Ram and others (2008-1) Vol.CXLIX to support his argument that in case of usufructuary mortgage where no time limit has been fixed to seek redemption, the right to seek redemption would not arise on the date of mortgage but will arise on the date when the mortgagor pays or tenders to the mortgagee or deposits in Court the mortgage mon