IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Regular Second Appeal No.86 of 2019 Reserved on: 30^th June, 2025.

Date of decision: 7^th July, 2025 Chain Singh …Appellant Versus Rameshwar Dutt …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellant: Mr. Ashok Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Rajat, Advocate vice Mr. Abhishek Banta, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Suneet Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vivek Negi, Advocate.

Vivekh Singh Thakur, Judge gThis appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant/defendant against judgment and decree dated 26.9.2018 passed by the District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No. 15-S/13 of 2015, titled Chain Singh vs. Rameshwar Dutt, whereby judgment and decree dated 28.2.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kandaghat, District Solan in Civil Suit No. 9-K/1 of 2013 titled Rameshwar Dutt vs. Chain Singh, has been afÏrmed.

2 For convenience, parties herein-after shall be referred as per their status in the suit i.e. plaintiff and defendant.

3 Plaintiff filed a suit under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act and alternatively, under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of tPhe H.P. Debt Reduction Act, 1976 for restoration of possession of mortgaged land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 32 min/54 bearing Khasra No. 302/113 min measuring 11 bighas situated in village Sain j, Pargana Bagri Kalan, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan HP video jamabandi for the year 2007-08.

The suit was decreed.

4 Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, defendant had preferred an appeal in the Court of District Judge, detailed supora, which was also dismissed and thereafter, present appeal has been preferred, which was admitted on 13^th March, 2019 on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether in a suit for redemption and possession in respect of usufructuary mortgage limitation of filing suit shall start from date of mortgage or from the discharge and satisfaction of loan amount from the income of mortgaged property when no specific time for repayment of loan is fixed under Mortgage Deed?

2. Whether both the learned Courts below failed to appreciate terms and condition of mortgage deed Ext.PW1/C in its right perspective and has misread, misconstrued and misapplied for determining the issue of limitation which has resulted in passing erroneous impugned judgments and decree?

3. Whether the learned first Appellate Court below gravely erred in holding that the defendant has not led evidence on satisfaction and discharge of mortgage loan from the income of mortgaged property by not taking into co.nsideration the admissions having been made by plaintiff in plaint as well as in his statement in Court with regard to satisfaction of loan amount long back more than 30 fyears ago from the income of mortgage property?

5 Ram Saran son of Luru was original owner of suit land in the year 1943. He mortgaged the suit land by executing mortgage deed dated 3^rd September, 1 943 (28.5.2000 Samvat Vikrami) Ext.PW1/C whereby he mortgaoged the suit land to Krishnia Ram son of Hari Ram against debt Cof Rs.200/- received by him with a condition that till payment of mortgage money, Krishnia shall enjoy the benefit from the mortgaged land and on payment of mortgage money Rs.200/-, mortgagor shall be entitled for redemption to recover the possession.

i6 Later on, Ram Saran was in need of further money and he received the additional amount of Rs.150/- from Krishnia Ram without any written agreement, however its entry was recorded in revenue record and mutation No. 232 was attested in this regard and as such, mortgage amount became Rs.350/-.

7 Ram Saran vide sale deed dated 5.7.1960, for consideration of Rs.500/-, sold the land to Sehaj Ram. Plaintiff Rameshwar Dutt is son of Sehaj Ram. After death of Sehaj Ram, plaintiff Rameshwar inherited his share including the suit land. Therefore, Rameshwar Dutt entered into the shoes of m