IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 16.10.2025 Pronounced on: 17.10.2025 I. RSA No. 3026 of 2001(O&M)

Amar Singh & Ors.

…Appellants Versus Ramji Lal & Ors.

…Respondents II. CR No. 577 of 2008 Chander Shekhar …Petitioner Versus Amar Singh & Ors.

…Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Ms. Aeshna Jain, Advocate for the Appellants in RSA No. 3026 of 2001, and for Respondent Nos. 1,9,10,12 and 14 in CR No. 577 of 2008.

Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner in CR No. 577 of 2008 and for Respondent Nos. 3 to 8, 10 to 13, 17, 19 to 24, 27, 40 to 46 in RSA No. 3026 of 2001.

***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

RSA No. 3026 of 2001 Plaintiffs Ramji Lal and others (respondents herein) had filed the suit with submissions that suit land measuring 27 kanals detailed in the head note of the plaint was mortgaged with possession in favour of their ancestors vide mutation No. 12 dated 10.12.1992, by the ancestors of the defendants; that plaintiffs have been in continuous possession; that defendants or their ancestors did not get the suit land redeemed within the period of limitation and as such, plaintiffs had become entitled to be recorded as owner of the suit land, as per their share, as the right of redemption had extinguished. They also prayed for decree of injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in their possession.

2. Suit was resisted by the defendants (appellants herein). After framing issues and taking evidence, the trial Court vide judgment dated 21.09.1999 partly decreed the suit by holding that plaintiffs had not become owners of the suit land, though they being in possession were entitled to the relief of injunction. As such, decree of permanent injunction was passed, whereby defendants i.e. appellants herein were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

3. Against the denial of ownership rights, plaintiffs filed the appeal. The First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 15.05.2001 accepted the same and held that plaintiffs had become owners in possession of the suit land and were entitled to get their names incorporated and substituted as owners in possession in the revenue record.

4. Against the aforesaid judgment of the First Appellate Court, defendants have approached this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon Singh Ram (dead) through legal representatives Vs. Sheo Ram & Ors. 2014(9) SCC 185, to contend that simply because of the expiry of 30 years from the date of mortgage, the right of redemption is not extinguished.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that in view of the legal proposition laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Ram’s case (supra), the plaintiffs-respondents could not be declared as owners of the suit land.

7. In “Singh Ram (supra), 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 Section 62 of the Transfer and Property Act and until then, limitation does not start for the purpose of Article 61 of the schedule to the Limitation Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that in case of usufructuary mortgage, mere expiry of period of 30 years from the date of creation of the mortgage does not extinguish the right of mortgagor under Section 62 of the Transfer and Property Act.

8. In the present case, as per the findings recorded by the trial Court, there was no cogent evidence as to for how long the mortgage was created and as to what were the terms and conditions of the mortgage. Thus, mortgage was subsisting. The revenue record did not provide the basis for determining the limitation of 30 years regarding the redemption of mortgage.

9. Both the counsels are ad idem that in the circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled only to the decree of permanent injunction and so,