The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of the plaintiff were extinguished due to the expiration of the limitation period, and findings regarding an oral contract were not admissible under the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is the defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.02.1988 passed by Civil Judge, Faizabad in Civil Appeal No.233/1984 arising out of the Regular Suit No.355/1981, decided by the 7th Additional Munsif, Faizabad by means of the its judgment and decree dated 18.07.1984, as a result, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for redemption of mortgage was decreed by the trial Court and the same has also been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.

2. The instant second appeal was admitted by this Court on 15.02.1988, however, at the relevant time, the substantial question of law was not formulated. Later, this Court on 20.03.2023, after hearing the parties, formulated three substantial questions of law involved in the instant second appeal, which read as under:-

"(A) Whether the two courts have committed an error in decreeing the suit which was partially modified by the Lower Appellate Court while affirming the decree of the Trial Court ignoring the issue of limitation, inasmuch as, a specific defence was raised by the defendants that the suit for redemption of mortgage would not be maintainable in light of the Sections 18, 22 and 27 of the Limitation Act?

(B) Whether the two courts have committed an error in treating an oral contract to have an overriding effect on the mortgage deed and its terms in light of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act?

(C) Whether in absence of any pleadings or evidence, the findings returned by the two courts regarding the conduct of the defendant and taking it to be against the defendant was justified?"

3. The issue involved in the instant second appeal is regarding the interplay and applicability of the Limitation Act as well as the Evidence Act as applicable to a suit for redemption of mortgage.

4. Insofar as the facts are concerned, there is not much dispute between the parties. However, to better appreciate the contentions as well as for answering the questions of law, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are being noticed hereinafter.

5. The original plaintiff namely Shiv Kumar Mishra filed a suit in the Court of Munsif, Faizabad against Bhawani Prasad, Smt. Yashoda Devi, Ram Shankar, Smt. Ramrati, Devi Prasad, Jagdamba Prasad, Mata Prasad, Anil Kumar, Gayatri Devi, Smt. Devki, Smt. Pushpa and Smt. Sushila Devi seeking a decree of redemption of mortgage. It was pleaded that the property in question comprising of a house and ahata initially belonged to Ayodhya Prasad Singh and he had agreed to sell the said house and ahata in favour of the plaintiff Shiv Kumar Mishra by executing a registered agreement to sell dated 23.06.1975. However, before executing the sale-deed, Ayodhya Prasad Singh expired and thereafter it took time for obtaining the permission from the District Magistrate and also to persuade the legal heirs of Ayodhya Prasad Singh and it is then the sale-deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff on 20.08.1981, therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking to redeem the mortgage.

6. The plaintiff also indicated a pedigree in Paragraph-3 of the plaint indicating that Salik Ram Sahu the common ancestors and he was survived by his three sons Baijnath, Bhawani Prasad and Shriram. From the branch of Baijnath, his widow Smt. Yoshoda Devi was impleaded as defendant No.2; Bhawani Prasad was impleaded as defendant No.1 and the defendants No.3 and 4 were the sons of the third son namely Shriram and the defendants No.5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were also the children of Shriram from his branch.

7. It was further pleaded that on 24.03.1931, a registered mortgaged-deed was executed by Ayodhya Prasad Singh in favour of Salik Ram Sahu, the predecessor-in-interest of Defendants No.1, 2, 5 and 15 for a sum of Rs.400/-. It was further pleaded that the mortgage money was Rs.400/-which was to be repaid with interest @ 1.5 per month. The time prescribed for repay