get the suit land redeemed despite lapse of more than 30 years, plain(cid:22)ff sought declara(cid:22)on to have become owner of the suit property.

3. Defendant resisted the claim. A(cid:31)er framing issues and taking evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the findings.

4. The sole ques(cid:22)on to be determined by this Court is as to whether by mere on expiry of the period of 30 years, the right of mortgagor to get the suit property redeemed, is ex(cid:22)nguished.

5. The said issue has been dealt with by the Full Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Singh Ram (D) through LRs v Sheo Ram and others”, 2014 AIR Supreme Court 3447, as has been fairly conceded by learned senior counsel for the appellant, wherein it has been held that right to recovery of possession in a case of usufructuary mortgage, commences when the mortgage money is paid out of rents and profits or partly out of rents and profits and partly by payment or deposit by the mortgagor as provided under Sec(cid:22)on 62 of the Transfer and Property Act, 1882 and un(cid:22)l then, limita(cid:22)on does not start for the purpose of Ar(cid:22)cle 61 of the schedule to the Limita(cid:22)on Act, 1963. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that in case of usufructuary mortgage, mere expiry of period of 30 years from the date of crea(cid:22)on of the mortgage does not ex(cid:22)nguish the right of mortgagor under Sec(cid:22)on 62 of the Transfer and Property Act, 1882.

6. In the present case, as per the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, there was no cogent evidence as to when the mortgage was created, for how long the same was created and as to what were the terms and condi(cid:22)ons of the mortgage. Thus, mortgage was subsis(cid:22)ng and there was no evidence to determine the date when the mortgage was created. The revenue record did not provide the basis for determining the limita(cid:22)on of 30 years regarding the redemp(cid:22)on of mortgage.

7. In view of the aforesaid factual posi(cid:22)on based upon evidence on record, it is clear that plain(cid:22)ff-appellant failed to prove that the period of 30 years for redemp(cid:22)on of mortgage had expired.

8. Consequently, by relying upon Singh Ram’s case (supra), it is held that the First Appellate Court did not commit any error in dismissing the suit and by allowing the appeal of the defendant (respondent herein). As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed.

October 09, 2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA)

Sarita JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No