IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : 16.09.2025 Pronounced on : 22.09.2025 Malkiat Kaur and Others ... Appellants Versus Mukhtiar Kaur and Others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants challenging the concurrent findings returned by the Trial vide judgment and decree dated 02.08.2017 and by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.07.2019.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- appellants herein filed a suit for declaration. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff-appellants are mortgagees and that the mortgagors had failed to redeem the land for the last more than 30 years and now the right of redemption stood extinguished on account of lapse of time and the plaintiff- appellants were entitled to be declared as owners of the said land. It was further averred that the defendant-respondents had succeeded in getting the sanction of inheritance vide mutation Nos.10571 and 10572 in their favour which was totally illegal and liable to be quashed as they were not related to the original owners. It was further the case that the defendant-respondents werenot legally competent to get the land redeemed as they were not the legal heirs of the original owner.

3. On notice the defendant-respondents appeared and filed their written statement raising various preliminary objections and stated that the plaintiff-appellants have no right to retain the possession of the suit property and that the defendant-respondents were willing to get the property redeemed however the plaintiff-appellants refused and that the redemption proceedings were pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dharamkot, District Moga.

4. Replication was not filed.On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of declaration, as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit ? OPD

5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands ? OPD

8. Relief.

5. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.08.2017 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff-appellants which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.07.2019. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

6. The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellants is that thedefendant-respondents have lost their right to redeem the mortgaged property as the property could only be redeemed within a period of 30 years and in the present case the mortgage was originally executed on

11.09.1986, 18.02.1988 and 03.08.1999.

7. Heard.

8. In the present case it was admitted by the parties that an application for redemption had been filed before the Revenue Court at Dharamkot. The plaintiff-appellants are seeking a declaration that they have become owner in possession of the suit land by prescription of time since the same has not been redeemed by the original mortgagors. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan & Ors. vs. Sheo Ram & Ors. [2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 334] has held as under :

“40. The limitation of 30 years under Article 61(a) begins to run "when the right to redeem or the possession accrues". The right to redemption or recover possession accrues to the mortgagor on payment of sum secured in case of usufructuary mortgage, where rents and profits are to be set off against interest on the mortgage debt, on payment or tender to the mortgagee, the mo