The intrinsic right of a mortgagor to redeem a property exists as long as the mortgage is active, and limitation periods only commence upon the mortgage debt being fully discharged.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by one of the plaintiffs against the concurrent findings of the Courts below.

2. On perusal of the entire paper-book, following facts emerge:-

2.1 Sh. Shiv Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the parties was owner of 7 kanal 16 marla of land situated in village Berampur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, detailed and described in head-note of the plaint. He expired on 06.01.1993, leaving behind five sons namely, Shingara & Piara Singh (plaintiffs), Malkiat, Chanchal & Tahar Singh (defendants No.1 to 3); and two daughters namely, Smt. Piaro (defendant No.4) and Smt. Bhajan Kaur. Suit property was ancestral in the hands of Shiv Singh. Said Shiv Singh executed a gift deed dated 25.07.1967 regarding suit property in favour of defendants No.1 to 3, which was assailed by the plaintiffs by filing a suit. By way of judgment & decree dated 22.04.1970 (Ex.P2 & Ex.P3), the gift deed was set aside by holding that it did not affect the reversionary rights of the plaintiff. Suit property was held to be ancestral in the hands of Shiv Singh. After the death of Shiv Singh, plaintiffs brought the present suit contending that they are entitled to possession of the suit land to the extent of their 2/5 share, in terms of the judgment and decree dated 22.04.1970.

2.2. In the written statement filed by the defendants, neither the ancestral nature of the suit land nor the decree dated 22.04.1970 are denied. However, defendants pleaded that Sh. Shiv Singh, during his lifetime had executed various mortgage deeds in favour of Chanda Singh son of Hari Singh, Beli Ram son of Bhaga and Ram Kishan. They pleaded mortgage deeds dated 09.06.1946 (Ex.D1 and Ex.D2) in respect of 12 Marla each of land in favour of Chanda Singh; mortgage deeds dated 10.07.1954 (Ex.D3 & Ex.D4) in respect of 1 kanal each of land in favour of Beli Ram; mortgage deed dated 09.06.1956 (Ex.D5) of 4 marla of land; mortgage deed dated 12.06.1947 (Ex.D6) in respect of 10 marla of land in favour of Ram Kishan; and mortgage deeds dated 08.06.1951 (Ex.D9 and D13 to D15) regarding 10 marla each in favour of Ram Kishan son of Nathu. It was contended further that by virtue of the writings dated 07.07.1964 (Ex.D7) and dated 16.08.1963 (Ex.D8), defendants had purchased the mortgagee rights from earlier mortgagee Ram Singh son of Ram Kishan and since then, they were in possession of the suit land in dispute. They denied any right of the plaintiffs in the suit land by contending that period of more than 30 years had elapsed since the creation of mortgage and since Shiv Singh had failed to get the suit land redeemed from the defendants, who had entered into the shoes of the earlier mortgagees, therefore, the defendants had become owner in possession of the suit property.

2.3 Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record.

2.4. Learned trial Court found that Shiv Singh had mortgaged the suit land by virtue of numerous mortgage deeds (Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 and Ex.D9 & Ex.D13 to Ex.D15) executed on different dates as pleaded by the defendants and that all those mortgage deeds being 30 years old, were admissible. It was further found that defendants had purchased the mortgagee rights by virtue of Ex.D7 and Ex.D8. The trial Court also found that as Shiv Singh i.e. the mortgagor had failed to get the suit land redeemed from the earlier mortgagees; or from defendants, who had stepped in the shoes of mortgages, in the last more than 30 years and therefore, his right to redeem had elapsed by efflux of time and as such, defendants had become owner in possession of the suit land. Accordingly, suit w