The mortgagor's rights to reclaim land are automatic after six years under invalidated usufructuary mortgage agreements lacking specified terms, as per relevant statute provisions.

JUDGMENT :

PREM NARAYAN SINGH, J.

1. With consent of both the parties, the appeal is heard at motion stage.

2. This Second appeal under Section 100 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (for brevity, CPC ) has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 24.07.2023 passed by District Judge, Depalpur, District Indore in Civil Suit No. RCA Nos.81/2021 and 85/2021 whereby the learned trial Court allowed the respondent no.1/plaintiff's appeal (RCA/85/2021), thereby declaring the usufructuary mortgage as redeemed and dismissed the appeal (RCA/81/2021) presented by the appellant/defendant, further ordered the appellants to vacate the suit land within two months.

3. The respondent no.1/plaintiff claims that in the year 2000, he had taken loan from the appellant/defendant on two occasions and after paying the entire amount taken, he asked for handing over the possession of the land. On this, the appellant/defendant refused to give the respondent no.1/plaintiff the possession of the land by telling that the amount of interest was still pending from the loan amount and taking advantage of the respondent no.1/plaintiff 's illiteracy, appellant/defendant made all calculations. On 29.08.2000, while executing a new agreement, respondent no.1/plaintiff assured the appellant/defendant to hand over the mortgaged land after getting the entire amount mentioned in the agreement, from the produce of the land and accordingly, after the complete calculation, appellant/defendant handed over the ownership of the land to the respondent no.1/plaintiff in the year 2009, on which the respondent no.1/plaintiff sowed soybean crop, but appellant/defendant threatened the respondent no.1/plaintiff and forcefully harvested the crop, regarding which the respondent no.1/plaintiff filed a First Information Report (Article 1) at Depalpur Police Station on 29.09.2009.

4. On that basis, an FIR was lodged and a case was registered before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145 of Cr.P.C, further in Civil Suit, the respondent no.1/plaintiff claimed that he has repaid the entire loan amount taken from appellant/defendant and if any interest is due on the respondent no.1/plaintiff then appellant/defendant has recovered it from the produce of the disputed land. As a result, the respondent no.1/plaintiff has requested for declaratory relief to the effect that he has been freed from the loan taken from appellant/defendant and he is entitled to get the possession of the disputed land from respondent no.1/plaintiff and has also requested to issue a permanent injunction against appellant/defendant. In proceedings under of Cr.P.C, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order on 25.05.2010, declaring appellant/defendant as the possessor of the disputed land and respondent no. 1/plaintiff owes Rs. 1,94,000/- and interest. Further it was held that due to continuous possession as sub-sharee for 03 years from 07.05.1999, appellant/defendant has become the owner of the disputed land by becoming the permanent tenant cultivator ¼ekS:"kh dk'rdkj½. Consequently, by way of counter claim, respondent no.1/plaintiff has prayed for the relief of declaring himself as the permanent tenant cultivator ¼ekS:"kh dk'rdkj½ of the disputed land and issuing a permanent injunction against the appellant/defendant for not interfering in his possession over the suit land.

5. The respondent no.1/plaintiff has denied all the averments of the counter claim and has replied to the effect that the Sub-Divisional Officer has acknowledged the possession of the appellant/defendant on the suit land on the basis of a false agreement. The re