The correct limitation period for recovery of money secured by a mortgage is 12 years, not 3 years.

1. By the impugned judgment and decree the trial Court has dismissed the appellant's suit for recovery of the loan amount by holding that the suit is barred by limitation, even though it has found the other issues proved in favour of the plaintiff / appellant.

2. The respondent Nos.1 to 3, hereafter referred to as 'the borrower' obtained loan of Rs.71,000/- for purchase of tractor trolley and executed agreement dated 30-10-1984. The respondent Nos.4 & 5, hereinafter referred to as 'the guarantor' stood guarantee to the said loan transaction. The borrowers have also executed the deed of mortgage securing the repayment of loan in favour of the Bank. As per the plaintiff bank, the repayment of the loan amount began from 13-5-1985 and the borrower made payment of installment till 12-1-1987, however, thereafter, no payment was made by the borrower or the guarantor. The borrower paid Rs.10,000/- on 27-8-1990; Rs.1,000/- on 8-9-1990; and again Rs.1,000/- on 22-1-1991. Prior to that the borrower executed balance confirmation letter or revival letter on 30-7-1990. When the borrower and / or guarantor failed to repay the loan amount, a suit for recovery of Rs.1,81,575/-was filed on 5-8-1992. The defendants denied the plaintiff's claim.

3. The trial Court framed 6 issues for adjudication and has concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.1,81,575/-, however, the suit has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

4. It is argued that the trial Court has wrongly treated the suit to have been preferred under Art.37 or 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') whereas the repayment of the loan amount being secured by creating a mortgage, it will be governed by the period of limitation as provided under Art.62 of the Act.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 - A, 4 - C & 5 - A would submit that the present suit for recovery of money would be governed by Art.37 or 55, therefore, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit.

6. Admittedly, the defendants have not entered the witness box nor preferred any cross - objection or cross - appeal before this Court to challenge the findings recorded by the trial Court on issue Nos.1, 2 - A to 2 - C, 3 & 5, therefore, the only issue fallen for consideration in this appeal is the issue No.4 regarding the suit being barred by limitation.

7. Art.37 of the Act deals with a suit for recovery of the amount on a promissory note or bond payable by installments, which provides that, if default be made in payment of one or more installments, the whole shall be due and the period of limitation is 3 years from the date when the default is made, whereas Art.62 deals with a suit to enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property with period of limitation being 12 years from the date when the money sued for becomes due.

8. A plain reading of both the Articles would explicit that when the suit is for enforcement of payment of money secured by a mortgage the period of limitation is 12 years whereas Art.37 deals with a suit based on promissory note or bond where the repayment is to be made by installments. The present suit preferred by the Bank was not a suit based on promissory note or bond, but the payment of the loan obtained by the borrower was secured by a deed of mortgage, the original of which has been produced by the plaintiff Bank before the trial Court. The execution of deed of mortgage being not denied by the defendants, it has not been exhibited formally, however, the trial Court has made endorsement over the document that it is admit