TMI Blog1999 (2) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inally mortgaged by Rekha and others for a sum of ₹ 53 in favour of Bakhatwara, Raju and Matu S/o Sahu on 21st March 1893. Mutation was sanctioned. Subsequently, on llth January, 1960, the mortgagee-Matu s/o Raju and Smt. Dasondha Wd/o Parsa D/o Sahu sold their mortgagee rights vide registered sale deed in the even date to the respondents. On the other hand, the appellants had purchased the suit land in the year 1959 from the original mortgagor-Rekha and others vide three separate registered sale deeds. According to the appellants till 1960-61 it were the mortgagors who remained in possession of the suit land were getting the same cultivated through their tenants. The appellants state that since in the year 1960 the original mortgagees had acknowledged the original mortgage, therefore, a fresh period of limitation for redemption of the mortgage in question begun to run from 11th January, 1960 and prayed for possession by way of redemption on payment of ₹ 53. On these facts, the appellants filed the present suit in the year 1980 for possession by way of redemption of the suit land as against the respon-dents. The respondents contested the suit and raised preliminary o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid agreement was less than ₹ 100, so the mortgage could have been effected either by a registered instrument or by delivery of possession of the land in question. In this view of the matter, admittedly, the land in the suit was mortgaged with possession for ₹ 53 in March 1893. Hence, a valid mortgage came into existence on the very day of its execution. In view of this, it held that the period of limitation of redemption of the land in suit started on that very date of the execution and thus period of 60 years is to be counted from March 1893, hence the suit is barred by time. When the matter was taken in second appeal the High Court relied on its Full Bench decision in Civil Revision No. 345 of 1981, titled, Sri Chand Ors. v. Nathi, dated 21st January 1983, in which it over-ruled its earlier decision in Inder- Singh (supra) and hence dismissed the appeal of the present appellants. Learned senior counsel for the appellants. Mr. A.B. Rohtagi, fairly stated that the aforesaid Full Bench decision is no doubt against the appellants but made submissions for holding contrary to what has been held therein. In the said case of Sri Chand Ors. (supra) one of the core-ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to run from the aforesaid date of June 14, 1948... . We find no error committed in coming to the said decision by the Full Bench. No sustainable submission has been advanced to hold a con-trary view. In his endeavour, learned counsel for the appellants, referred to Section 18 of the Limitation Act to hold that the acknowledgement by the original mortgagees to the respondents, through the said registered document dated 11th January 1960, the period of limitation is revive which would only start from that date of acknowledgement hence the suit filed in the year 1980 would be within limitation. The said submission is without any force. Section 18, sub-section (1), itself starts with the words Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made... . Thus, the acknowledgement, if any, has to be prior to the expiration of the prescribed period for filing the suit, in other words, if the limitation has already expired, it would not revive under this Section. It is only during subsistence of a period of limitation, if any, such document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 842 Madana, who was then Ejaman of the family, usufructuarily mortgaged the `A', `B' and `C' Schedule properties under Ex. P-l. This deed did not contain any provision for repayment of the amount or for the usufructuary mortgage to be worked off. So no period was stated for redemption. Then it was later converted into a mortgage specifying time through Ex. P-2, as aforesaid, in 1862. The Court held : ...In 1842 when Ex. P- l was executed, there was no law prescribing a period of limitation for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. Such limit came in 1859 for the first time and a period of 60 years from the date of the mortgage was prescribed. It is this statute which seems to have been the cause for the execution of Exs. P-2 and P-2(a); the mortgagees were perhaps afraid that the mortgage could be redeemed at any time within 60 years from the date of the mortgage of 1842. The last date for redemption thus was 1902. By getting the term certain for 40 years, the date for redemption was shifted by them to 1902 and redemption could not take place till that year, the mortgagors also benefited, because they obtained a release of some properties and received ₹ 100 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es. This has no co-relation with the period of limitation in case of redemption of mortgages. In any case, even from the date of this Act, viz., 1913 the period of limitation expires on 1973 hence the suit still is barred by time. Learned counsel also referred to the language of Section 61(a) of part V of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, which is quoted hereunder : 61. By a mortgagor - Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run (a) to redeem or recover possession of immovable property mortgaged; Thirty Years When the right to redeem or to recover possession accrues. It is not in dispute at the relevant time period of limitation under this was 60 years and not 30 years. Submission was, as aforesaid, right to redeem only accrue when either mortgagors tender the amount of mortgage or the mortgagees communicate satisfaction of the mortgage amount through the usufruct from the land. This submission is misconceived, as aforesaid, if this interpretation is accepted, then till this happens the period of limitation never start running and it could go on for an infinite period. We have no hesitation to reject this submission. The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
