Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Babar Bhan, Advocate and Mr. Jagdeep Singh Rana, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1995 passed by the First Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.01.1994 passed by the Trial Court.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for declaration that he had become owner of the suit land by efflux of time. The case set up was that defendant - Nagina Singh - was owner of the land measuring 02 kanals 19 marlas being 1/5th share of the land measuring 14 kanals 10 marlas and the land was mortgaged with possession in favour of the plaintiff-appellant vide mortgage deed dated 23.12.1959 for a consideration of Rs.500/- and the mutation being mutation No.239 was also sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and since the land has not been redeemed, hence, the plaintiff-respondent had become owner of the suit land by efflux of time. Written statement was filed by the defendant-appellant who stated that the mortgage money amounting to Rs.2,000/- stood paid on 13.06.1989 through Court of the Collector, Thanesar and the property stood redeemed and that inadvertently in the order passed by the Collector the Khasra Nos.13 and 14 were not mentioned. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land as mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint by lapse of time of mortgage ? OPP

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

3. Whether the plaintiff cannot take any benefit of technical flaw of procedure, if so to what effect ? OPD

4. Whether the whole of the mortgage money stood paid to the plaintiff within limitation and if so to what effect ? OPD

5. Relief.

3. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.1994. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent which appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 27.01.1995. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the defendant-appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant would contend that the suit itself would not be maintainable in view of the law laid down in the case of Ram Kishan & Ors. Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors. [2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 334] which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Ram (D) through LRs Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors [AIR 2014 SC 3447] .

5. Heard.

6. As per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankajakshi (dead) through LR's & Ors. vs. Chandrika & Ors. [2016 (6) SCC 157] there is no requirement for framing of substantial questions of law.

7. In the present case the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was for declaration that he had become owner of the suit land by efflux of time. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) has held as under :

"40. The limitation of 30 years under Article 61(a) begins to run "when the right to redeem or the possession accrues". The right to redemption or recover possession accrues to the mortgagor on payment of sum secured in case of usufructuary mortgage, where rents and profits are to be set off against interest on the mortgage debt, on payment or tender to the mortgagee, the mortgage money or balance thereof or deposit in the court. The right to seek foreclosure is co-extensive with the right to seek redemption. Since right to seek redemption accrues only on payment of the mortgage money or the balance thereof after adjustment of rents and profits from the interest thereof, therefore, right of foreclosu