Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Limitation Period for Redemption of Mortgage - The general limitation period for a mortgagor to redeem or recover possession of immovable property is 30 years, starting from the date the right to redeem accrues, typically when the principal money becomes due or when the mortgage money is paid or deposited out of rents and profits. This is established under Article 61(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963 ["Gopal Krishan VS Anandpal Singh (D. ) through LRs Deepak Singh - Madhya Pradesh"] ["Dharu Ram VS Ladha Ram - Punjab and Haryana"] ["Ajaib Singh (deceased through LRs) VS Ved Parkash - Punjab and Haryana"] ["V. Indra (Died) through her Power Agent Doctor V. Veluchamy VS G. Padmanabhan - Madras"].
Right to Redeem and Limitation - The mortgagor's right to redeem is statutory and remains unless extinguished by a decree or act of the parties. The expiry of 30 years from the mortgage date does not automatically extinguish this right, especially in cases of usufructuary mortgages, where the right to recover possession and redeem continues until the mortgage money is fully paid or tendered ["V. Indra (Died) through her Power Agent Doctor V. Veluchamy VS G. Padmanabhan - Madras"] ["Dharu Ram VS Ladha Ram - Punjab and Haryana"] ["ARUN KUMAR RAI VS BABU RAM RAI - Allahabad"].
Usufructuary Mortgages and Limitation - In usufructuary mortgages, the right to redeem and recover possession does not extinguish after 30 years; it is contingent upon the payment or deposit of mortgage money out of rents and profits. The expiry of 30 years does not confer ownership or extinguish the mortgagor's right to redeem, nor does it authorize mortgagees to claim ownership solely based on passage of time ["V. Indra (Died) through her Power Agent Doctor V. Veluchamy VS G. Padmanabhan - Madras"] ["Dharu Ram VS Ladha Ram - Punjab and Haryana"] ["Pathumma, W/o Moorikuharmmanakath Syed vs Mohammedkutty, S/o. Moorikuharamankath Pathumma Umma - Kerala"] ["ARUN KUMAR RAI VS BABU RAM RAI - Allahabad"] ["SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs SARDUL SINGH AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Legal View on Limitation and Extinguishment of Rights - Courts have consistently held that the limitation period bars the remedy to enforce the right but does not extinguish the right itself unless a specific decree or act of the parties explicitly does so. For example, if no suit for redemption is filed within 30 years, the mortgagor's right is considered barred, and the mortgagee can prescribe ownership ["Babau Ram VS Deputy Director of Consolidation - Allahabad"] ["ARUN KUMAR RAI VS BABU RAM RAI - Allahabad"] ["Bhawani Prasad VS Sheo Kumar - Allahabad"].
Special Cases and Deeds - Certain mortgage deeds or agreements may specify shorter periods or conditions, but generally, the 30-year limitation applies unless the mortgage is discharged, foreclosed, or the mortgagor expressly waives their right. The expiry of this period leads to the extinguishment of the mortgagor's right to redeem, as confirmed in multiple judgments ["Pathumma, W/o Moorikuharmmanakath Syed vs Mohammedkutty, S/o. Moorikuharamankath Pathumma Umma - Kerala"] ["Babau Ram VS Deputy Director of Consolidation - Allahabad"].
Conclusion - The deposit of the title deed or mortgage documents by the mortgagor does not, by itself, extinguish the right to redeem. The limitation of 30 years from the date the right accrues effectively bars the mortgagor from claiming redemption if no suit is filed within that period. However, in usufructuary mortgages, this period does not automatically extinguish the right to redeem or recover possession, which persists until the mortgage money is fully paid or tendered ["V. Indra (Died) through her Power Agent Doctor V. Veluchamy VS G. Padmanabhan - Madras"] ["Gopal Krishan VS Anandpal Singh (D. ) through LRs Deepak Singh - Madhya Pradesh"] ["Dharu Ram VS Ladha Ram - Punjab and Haryana"].
References:- ["V. Indra (Died) through her Power Agent Doctor V. Veluchamy VS G. Padmanabhan - Madras"]- ["Gopal Krishan VS Anandpal Singh (D. ) through LRs Deepak Singh - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Dharu Ram VS Ladha Ram - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Pathumma, W/o Moorikuharmmanakath Syed vs Mohammedkutty, S/o. Moorikuharamankath Pathumma Umma - Kerala"]- ["ARUN KUMAR RAI VS BABU RAM RAI - Allahabad"]- ["SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs SARDUL SINGH AND OTHERS - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Babau Ram VS Deputy Director of Consolidation - Allahabad"]- ["Bhawani Prasad VS Sheo Kumar - Allahabad"]
In property law, few issues spark as much confusion as the interplay between depositing a title deed and a mortgagor's right to redeem. Many wonder: Does the deposit of the title deed mean the mortgagor's right to redeem is barred by limitation after 30 years? This question often arises in long-standing mortgages, especially usufructuary ones, where possession has changed hands decades ago.
The short answer, based on established precedents, is no. The mere deposit of the title deed does not automatically extinguish the right to redeem. Instead, the 30-year limitation period under Article 61(a) of the Limitation Act starts only when the mortgagor's right to redeem accrues—typically when the mortgage money becomes due. This article breaks down the legal principles, key court findings, and practical implications to help you navigate this complex area.
The right of redemption is a fundamental statutory and equitable right under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It allows the mortgagor to reclaim their property upon payment or tender of the mortgage money, at any time after the principal becomes due, unless extinguished by act of the parties or a court decree. Prabhakaran VS M. Azhagiripillai (Dead) by Lrs. - 2006 3 Supreme 245
As affirmed in judicial rulings, The right of the mortgagor to redeem is a statutory right that subsists as long as the mortgage remains valid and is not extinguished by act of the parties or a decree of court. Prabhakaran VS M. Azhagiripillai (Dead) by Lrs. - 2006 3 Supreme 245
This right persists despite the passage of time, provided limitation has not run its course. Courts emphasize that it is intrinsic to mortgaging and cannot be limited by time unless specifically agreed upon. Piara Singh vs Malkiat Singh - 2025 Supreme(P&H) 159
Article 61(a) of the Limitation Act prescribes a 30-year period for a suit by a mortgagor to redeem or recover possession. Crucially, this clock does not start from the date of the mortgage execution or title deed deposit. It begins when the right to redeem or recover possession accrues, which is generally when the mortgage money becomes due and payable. Prabhakaran VS M. Azhagiripillai (Dead) by Lrs. - 2006 3 Supreme 245Ram Gopal VS Budhiprakash - 2012 0 Supreme(Raj) 560
In usufructuary mortgages—where the mortgagee enjoys rents and profits—the limitation period starts even later: only once the mortgagee has paid the mortgage money out of rents and profits or upon deposit of the amount. Prabhakaran VS M. Azhagiripillai (Dead) by Lrs. - 2006 3 Supreme 245Ram Gopal VS Budhiprakash - 2012 0 Supreme(Raj) 560
One key source clarifies: The limitation period under Article 61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act begins only when the mortgage money is fully discharged, either entirely through rents and profits, or partly through rents and profits and partly by payment or deposit made by the mortgagor. Piara Singh vs Malkiat Singh - 2025 Supreme(P&H) 159
A common misconception is that depositing the title deed equates to payment or acknowledgment of the debt, triggering limitation. However, courts have consistently held otherwise: Deposit of the title deed alone, without payment or tender of the mortgage amount, does not constitute a payment or acknowledgment that extinguishes the mortgagor’s right to redeem. Prabhakaran VS M. Azhagiripillai (Dead) by Lrs. - 2006 3 Supreme 245
The deposit preserves the right rather than barring it. The deposit of the title deed is not equivalent to payment or tender of the mortgage debt. Deposit of the deed does not acknowledge or extinguish the mortgage debt. Prabhakaran VS M. Azhagiripillai (Dead) by Lrs. - 2006 3 Supreme 245 Limitation runs from when the mortgagee’s right to recover the mortgage amount becomes due and the mortgagor’s right to redeem accrues, not the deposit date. Ram Gopal VS Budhiprakash - 2012 0 Supreme(Raj) 560
Usufructuary mortgages receive particular attention due to their unique nature under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act. Here, the mortgagor can recover possession together with the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee— only after the debt is cleared via profits or deposit. Until then, the limitation does not start for purposes of Article 61. Veeri Ummal VS Rajendran Babu - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 767
Supreme Court interpretations reinforce this: In the case of a usufructuary mortgage, the right of the mortgagor to redeem the property does not get extinguished due to non-payment of the mortgage money within the time specified by the Court. Veeri Ummal VS Rajendran Babu - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 767
Further, a usufructuary mortgagor has the right to redeem the mortgage at any time as no limitation period applies; expiry of 30 years does not extinguish that right. Prem Chand (deceased) through LRs vs Sheelan Devi (deceased) through LRs - 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6579 Even after a century, redemption suits have succeeded if limitation hasn't accrued. Shyam vs Shyamwati - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1398
In one case, plaintiffs redeemed land mortgaged in 1890, with courts ruling: Right to recover possession in usufructuary mortgages commences upon payment of mortgage money from profits. Expiry of 30 years does not extinguish this right. Shyam vs Shyamwati - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1398
While the right is robust, exceptions exist:- Clog on Redemption: If the mortgage deed makes it irredeemable for a period, it may be void as a clog on the equity of redemption unless upheld. Ganga Dhar VS Shankar Lal - 1958 0 Supreme(SC) 55- Acknowledgment or Payment: Actual deposit of mortgage money or acknowledgment by the mortgagee can start or extend limitation. Prabhakaran VS M. Azhagiripillai (Dead) by Lrs. - 2006 3 Supreme 245Ram Gopal VS Budhiprakash - 2012 0 Supreme(Raj) 560- Court Decrees: A final decree for sale or foreclosure can bar redemption, but preliminary decrees in redemption suits often allow deposits post-time limits in usufructuary cases. Veeri Ummal VS Rajendran Babu - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 767
Note that in non-usufructuary mortgages, stricter timelines may apply, and deposits after sale confirmation might not revive rights. Pandillapalli Venkata Ramana Reddy vs Kanupuru Sudhakar Reddy - 2025 Supreme(AP) 448
To protect your interests:- Mortgagors: Tender the mortgage amount promptly when due to avoid disputes. Courts may condone delays in deposits for usufructuary mortgages, as the filing of an application to condone the delay in depositing the mortgage money was unnecessary. Veeri Ummal VS Rajendran Babu - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 767- Mortgagees: Do not assume ownership after 30 years without proving debt discharge. A usufructuary mortgagee cannot claim ownership merely after 30 years since mortgage execution. Piara Singh vs Malkiat Singh - 2025 Supreme(P&H) 159- Seek Evidence: Always examine mortgage terms, payment records, and when the right accrued before filing suits.
This overview draws from authoritative rulings but is for informational purposes only. Property laws vary by jurisdiction and facts; consult a qualified lawyer for advice tailored to your situation. Stay informed to safeguard your property rights.
References:- Prabhakaran VS M. Azhagiripillai (Dead) by Lrs. - 2006 3 Supreme 245- Ram Gopal VS Budhiprakash - 2012 0 Supreme(Raj) 560- Veeri Ummal VS Rajendran Babu - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 767- Piara Singh vs Malkiat Singh - 2025 Supreme(P&H) 159- Shyam vs Shyamwati - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1398- Prem Chand (deceased) through LRs vs Sheelan Devi (deceased) through LRs - 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 6579- Ganga Dhar VS Shankar Lal - 1958 0 Supreme(SC) 55
#MortgageRedemption, #LimitationAct, #PropertyLaw
deposit by the mortgagor. ... Right of mortgagor to redeem At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged ... Right of usufructuary mortgagor to recover possession In the case of a usufructuar....
Article 61(c) of the Limitation Act provides that the period of limitation for a suit by a mortgagor to redeem or recover the possession of the immovable property is 30 years. The period of limitation begins to run when right to redeem or to recover of possession accrues. 32. ... Article 61 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides the starting point and limitation for using in "right to redeem accrued to the mortgagor.....
The limitation of 30 years under Article 61(a) begins to run "when the right to redeem or the possession accrues". ... deposit by the mortgagor. ... Right of mortgagor to redeem At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage-deed#H....
The limitation of 30 years under Article 61(a) begins to run "when the right to redeem or the possession accrues". ... deposit by the mortgagor. ... Right of mortgagor to redeem At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage-deed#H....
profits and partly by payment or deposit by mortgagor. ... Right of usufructuary mortgagor to recover possession.— In the case of a usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagor has a right to recover possession of the property [together with the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee]— ... Until then, the limitation does not start for purposes of Article 61 of the Schedule to t....
The limitation period under Article 61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act begins only when the mortgage money is fully discharged, either entirely through rents and profits, or partly through rents and profits and partly by payment or deposit made by the mortgagor. ... Right of mortgagor to redeem. ... (c ) Limitation period does not start until redemption right arises, as for usufructuary mortgages, limitation for recovery of p....
Right of mortgagor to redeem At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged ... Right of usufructuary mortgagor to recover possession In the case of a usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagor has a right#....
Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for redemption is 30 years when the right to redeem or to recover possession accrues. As per the terms of Ext.B1, the mortgagor can pay and the mortgagee can claim mortgage money only after a period of two years. ... Therefore, the period of limitation for redemption of Ext.B1 as provided under Article 61(a) of the Limitation Act is 30 years and it expired on 21.6.1969. ... We, thus, hold that special #....
The limitation for a suit for redem ption in respect of these plots expired in the year 1936, Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that limitation only bars a remedy but does not extinguish a right. Reliance was placed on "krishna Menon v. Kesavan and others (I. L. ... It was held that a mortgagor who allows his right of redemption to be barred by not instituting the suit as provided under Art. 148 of the Limitation Act, loses his title to the property, and t....
It was also admitted that Dhani Ram sold his right to the defendant by executing a sale deed and Lehna Singh executed a Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff. ... The said provisions in the Limitation Act would anyway have no application in view of Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and mere expiry of the period of 30 years from the date of creation of mortgage would not extinguish the right of an usufructuary mortgagor like the defendants under ... We,....
In fact, even in the judgment relied upon by the appellant in AIR 1968 SCC 86 -Hukumchand Vs. Bansilal and others, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed that the provisions of Order 34 Rule 5(1) gives an opportunity to a judgment debtor in a mortgage decree for sale to deposit the amount due under the mortgage decree at any time before the confirmation of sale made in pursuance of the final decree. The learned judge goes on to state that when such a deposit is made, the executing Court has to accept the payment and make an order in favour of the judgment debtor. The learned Judge has observ....
It is well established that there is no civil right which is not circumscribed or governed by law of limitation, which aspect is well established by provisions of Section 3 and Section 27 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, in view of the prescription of 30 years, under Article 61 of the Limitation Act read with section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, a mortgagor has to institute a suit for redemption or recovery of possession within 30 years of the mortgage, since his right to redeem or recover the possession accrues to him the moment the parties are in jural relationship of mor....
The learned Senior Counsel relies on decisions of the Supreme Court in Annapurna Vs. Mallikarjun and another, (2014) 6 SCC 397 and Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited Vs. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited and another, (2011) 1 SCC 216 in support of the aforestated contentions. 6. Further, it is contended that even under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the deposit made after the expiry of the limitation period cannot confer any right on the mortgagor to redeem the mortgaged property by setting aside the sale.
He has thus submitted that appellate court below having examined the nature and character of the deed, in absence of any legal infirmity therein, it would not require any interference by this Court. It was submitted that once the deed is held to be a mortgage deed, be it of any nature, the mortgagor has a right to redeem before expiry of period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act.
Such a view was formed on the premise the deposit can be made by the mortgagor so long as the relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee subsisted and it cannot be said that the relationship continued even after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Art.61 of the Limitation Act. Sub-r. (2) of R.7 of O.XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure does not confer on the usufructuary mortgagor a right to seek extension of time and that is applicable only in the case of mortgagor other than usufractuary mortgagee was the reasoning taken to hold that the mortgagor has a right to ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
