Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1498
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3358/2010
DALIP SINGH(D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. ...APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
SAWAN SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(s)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
We have heard learned senior counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the
petitioners herein, the original plaintiffs, are the
mortgagees of the disputed property admeasuring 114 Kanals
and 4 Marlas of land situated at Village Tamkot, Tehsil
Mansa, district Bathinda. The said property was mortgaged by
the ancestors of the respondents herein who were the original
defendant in the Civil Suit No.291/1975 that was filed by
the petitioners/original plaintiffs challenging the order of
the Collector dated 17.09.1975. The respondents/defendants
had filed an application under Section 6 of Redemption of
Mortgage Act, 1913 for redemption of the said property that
was mortgaged by the ancestors of the
Signature Not Verified
respondents/defendants. The said order was allowed by the
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.12.24
12:39:13 IST
Reason:
collector vide order dated 17.09.1975, and therefore
1
allowed the redemption of the mortgaged property in favour
of the applicants i.e. respondents/defendants herein.
Aggrieved by the Collector’s order dated 17.09.1975, the
petitioners/original plaintiff filed Civil Suit No.
291/1975. The said suit was decreed in the favour of the
petitioners/original plaintiff vide order dated 22.09.1976
wherein the Trial Court observed that the application for
redemption of mortgaged property preferred by the
respondents/defendants was barred by limitation and
therefore the Collector's order dated 17.09.1975 was set
aside.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the
respondents/defendants preferred first Appeal before
Additional District Judge, Bhatinda in Civil Appeal
No.107/R.T.-99 of 76/77 which was dismissed vide order dated
24.12.1980.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the
respondents/defendants preferred Regular Second Appeal
No.1053/1981 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
The Regular Second Appeal No.1053/1981 was allowed by the
Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated18.09.2001
thereby holding that the respondents/defendants’ right to
redeem the mortgage was not barred by limitation and that
the fresh cause of action for redemption accrued based upon
the adjustments made to the loan from the income arising
from the land.
2
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 18.09.2001, the
petitioners/original plaintiffs preferred an appeal before
this Court in Civil Appeal No.6084/2002. The said appeal was
allowed, wherein vide order dated 16.04.2009, the case was
remanded to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on
procedural grounds for re-adjudication as the High Court had
failed to formulate substantial questions of law before
allowing the appeal. Thereafter, after formulating
substantial questions of law, the Punjab and Haryana High
Court, in Regular Second Appeal No.1053/1981, again allowed
the appeal vide order dated 25.01.2010 in favour of the
respondents/defendants herein.
6. It was observed by the High Court, while placing
reliance upon Ram Kishan and Ors. Vs Sheo Ram and Ors. 2008
(1) RCR (CIVIL) 334, that in case of usufructuary mortgage,
where no time limit is fixed to seek redemption, the right
to seek redemption would not arise from the date of mortgage
but will arise on the date when the mortgagor pays or tenders
to the mortgagee or deposits in Court, the mortgage money or
balance thereof and hence the order of the Collector dated
17.09.1975 was restored and the the Civil Suit No.291/1975
filed by the petitioners/original plaintiffs was dismissed.
7. Aggrieved, by the said judgment in Regular Civil
Appeal No.1053/1981 dated 25.01.2010, the
petitioners/original plaintiffs are here before this Court.
3
8. We have perused the impugned judgment passed in RSA
No.1053/1981. We find that the High Court had placed reliance
on one of its judgments in the case of Singh Ram (Dead)
through legal representatives Vs. Sheo Ram and Others to
allow the appeal filed by the appellants therein who are
defendants in the suit. Consequently, the plaintiff’s suit
was dismissed. Hence, being aggrieved by the dismissal of
the suit, the plaintiffs are in appeal before this Court.
9. However, during the course of submissions, the
judgment in Singh Ram (supra) referred to above, by a three-
judge Bench of this Court reported in (2014) 9 SCC 185 has
been brought to our notice. On a perusal of the said
judgment, it is noted that when there is a usufructuary
mortgage, the period of limitation does not run from the
date of creation of the mortgage but from the date of payment
of mortgage- either out of the usufructuary or partly out of
the usufructuary or partly on payment of deposit by mortgager
as provided under Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act,
1882. Till then the period of limitation would not start
under Section 61 (a) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.
As such mere expiry of the period prescribed thereunder could
not extinguish the mortgager’s right of redemption and
thereby the right of mortgagee to seek declaration of title
and ownership over the mortgage property stands untouched.
4
10. It was contended by learned counsel for the
respondents that if the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is
applied to the present case, the suit filed by the
appellant/plaintiffs would have to be dismissed and earlier
order of the Collector would have to be restored.
11. We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel
for the respondents.
12. In the circumstances, we follow the aforesaid dictum
in the present case and consequently, we dismiss the appeal
filed by the plaintiff(s). We affirm the judgment of the
high court and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff(s).
13. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
14. Consequently, the interim order of stay stands
vacated.
15. Parties to bear their respective costs.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
…………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………J.
(R. MAHADEVAN)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 12, 2025
5