JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs seeking the right to redeem 1/4th share of mortgaged property was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 04.01.1996; and the appeal by them against the same was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 17.04.1999.

2. For convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the learned Trial Court.

3. 1 Factual Matrix: One Partap Singh was the original owner of the suit land. In May 1943, he mortgaged the entire land with Mehar Singh and Arjan Singh for a sum of Rs.2345/-, as reflected in mutation No.5120 (Ex.P12). Eventually, Mehar Singh purchased Arjan Singh's mortgagee rights and became the sole mortgagee.

3.2 Upon the death of Partap Singh (who died unmarried and issueless), his estate devolved as follows:

- 1/2 share to Mehar Singh son of Wasawa Singh (predecessor of the plaintiffs),

- 1/4 share to defendants No.1 to 7 (legal heirs of Kehar Singh son of Hazara Singh), and

- 1/4 share to Sham Kaur defendant No.8, daughter of Mehar Singh son of Sahib Singh.

Thus, Mehar Singh held a dual status - as mortgagor to the extent of 1/2 share, and mortgagee of the remaining 1/2 share.

3.3 In 1974, defendants No.1 to 7 applied to the Collector for redemption not only of their own 1/4 share, but also for the share of Sham Kaur. Although Sham Kaur filed a reply (Ex.P2) and made statement (Ex.P3) expressing that she would redeem her own share separately, the Collector passed an order on 10.05.1974 (Ex.P4) permitting redemption of their own 1/4 shares + Sham Kaur's % share in favour of defendants No.1 to 7.

3.4 The said order was challenged by plaintiffs by way of Civil Suit No.151/1974, which was dismissed on 18.11.1976 (Ex.P5). Their appeal was dismissed on 27.04.1979 (Ex.P7), and even RSA No.219 of 1980 before this High Court met the same fate on 04.08.1980.

3.5 Subsequently, the plaintiffs purchased Sham Kaur's 1/4 share via registered sale deed dated 06.12.1979 (Ex.P9) and applied to the Collector for redemption of the same. The application was rejected on 09.04.1990 (Ex.P11).

4. Plaintiffs' Claim: Plaintiffs then filed the present suit on 09.04.1991, assailing the Collector's order of rejection dated 9.4.1990, and seeking right to redeem Sham Kaur's 1/4th share on payment of proportionate mortgage money on the premise that they had stepped into her shoes and had a mortgagee's right.

5. Stand of contesting defendants: Contesting the suit, defendants No.1 to 6 contended that they had already gotten the share of Sham Kaur redeemed by virtue of the order dated 10.05.1974 of the Collector, which was upheld up to this Court; that Sham Kaur was also a party to the earlier application for redemption and at that time, she did not get her share redeemed. Even after order dated 10.05.1974, she never applied for getting her share redeemed and therefore, the present suit filed in April 1991 being beyond 12 years from the order dated 10.05.1974, was barred by limitation.

6. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. The trial court dismissed the suit by holding that suit was barred by limitation, and the First Appellate Court affirmed the findings.

7. Rival Contentions: Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, ld. Counsel for the appellants - plaintiffs contended that since earlier litigation challenging the 1974 order ended only in 1980, limitation would begin from that date. Further, they argued that under Article 61(a) of the Limitation Act, 1963, they had 30 years to redeem the mortgaged share. Ld. Counsel relies on principle of 'once a mortgage always a mortgage' and therefore, states that there is no limitation for redemption.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants argued that

- Redemption had already been lawfully completed in 1974,

- All Court