Faqir Chand And Others vs Ram Piari And Others

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

1. RSA-904-1990 (O&M)
VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS
......... Appellants
VERSUS
RAM PIARI AND OTHERS
..... Respondents
2. RSA-804-1990 (O&M)
FAQIR CHAND AND OTHERS
......... Appellants
VERSUS
RAM PIARI AND OTHERS
..... Respondents
3. RSA-1042-1990 (O&M)
JAGDISH RAI AND OTHERS
......... Appellants
VERSUS
RAM PIARI AND OTHERS
..... Respondents
4. RSA-1249-1990 (O&M)
AMIR CHAND
......... Appellant
VERSUS
RAM PIARI AND OTHERS
..... Respondents
1. Judgment reserved on 27.08.2026
2. Judgment pronounced on 10.09.2026
3. Judgment uploaded on 14.09.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full
pronounced.
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full
judgment and reason thereof. Nil
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -2-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Argued by : Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocate for the appellants.
Respondent No.1-died,
LRs represented through respondents No.2 to 7.
Ms. Shruti Jangra, Advocate for
Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate
for respondent No.4 (in RSA-904-1990).
Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate and
Mr. Lalit Chander Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent.
Mr. Mridul Mahajan, Advocate for
Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.7.
Respondents No.5 and 6 proceeded against ex parte
vide order dated 21.08.2024.
Service upon respondents No.8 to 12 dispensed with
vide order dated 22.05.2024.
Respondents No.2(i), 2(ii) and 3(i) proceeded ex parte
vide order of even date.
Respondents No.13 to 16- proforma respondents.

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of abovesaid four connected
Regular Second Appeals bearing RSA No.904 of 1990, RSA No.804 of
1990, RSA No.1042 of 1990 and RSA No.1249 of 1990, as they have
arisen out of similar civil suits involving the same primary contesting
parties, concerning identical tracts of land situated in village Kharian,
District Sirsa, and raising common questions of law regarding the
statutory period of limitation for the redemption of mortgage and the
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -3-
acquisition of ownership by prescription of time.
2. In RSA No. 904 of 1990 , the appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 21.12.1989 passed by the Additional District
Judge, Sirsa, affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.04.1988 passed
by Sub Judge 1st Class, Sirsa, vide which Civil Suit No. 155 of 1983
filed by respondents/plaintiffs against defendants/appellants was decreed.
3. In RSA No. 804 of 1990 , the appeal is preferred against the
judgment and decree dated 20.11.1989 passed by the Additional District
Judge, Sirsa, affirming the judgment and decree dated 27.01.1988 passed
by Sub Judge 1st Class, Mandi Dabwali, vide which Civil Suit No. 160 of
1983 filed by plaintiffs/respondents was decreed.
4. In RSA No. 1042 of 1990 , the appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 21.12.1989 passed by the Additional District
Judge, Sirsa, affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1987 passed
by Sub Judge 1st Class, Mandi Dabwali, vide which Civil Suit No. 157-C
of 1983 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was decreed.
5. In RSA No. 1249 of 1990 , the appeal challenges the
judgment and decree dated 21.12.1989 passed by the Additional District
Judge, Sirsa, affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1987 passed
by Sub Judge 1st Class, Mandi Dabwali, vide which Civil Suit No. 159 of
1983 filed by plaintiffs/respondents was decreed.
Facts of Civil Suit No.155 of 1983 titled as Vinod Kumar and others
Versus Ram Piari and others:-
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -4-
6. Case of plaintiffs is that some land was mortgaged with
possession with Ganesh Dass, Mula Mal, Girdhari Lal and Mangla Mal
by contesting defendants in Pakistan prior to partition of the country in
the year 1947 and possession was also delivered to the mortgagees and
they remained in possession over the same. After partition of the country,
defendants were allotted the suit property in village Kharian, Tehsil
Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa and its possession was handed over to Ganesh Dass
etc. in their capacity as mortgagees. Plaintiffs Ram Piari and Sukhan Bai,
both are widows of Ganesh Dass, one of the mortgagees, and they are in
possession over the suit property along with their children namely
Hardevi, Giani Bai @ Gian Bai, Raji Bai @ Rajji Bai, Bhagwan Devi,
Pushpa Devi and Jagdish Chander. It is alleged that they have become
owners in possession of the suit property in equal shares to the extent of
two shares out of the five shares i.e. 2/5th share of Ganesh Dass. The
remaining three shares out of five shares of Mula Mal were claimed on
behalf of Mula Mal’s successors-in-interest namely Bhamba Mal @
Bhamba Ram, Prabhu Dayal and Lal Chand, who have been impleaded
as proforma defendants in all the four suits. It is submitted that
defendants have failed to get the suit property redeemed within the
prescribed period of 30 years and now the plaintiffs have become owners
in possession of the suit property by prescription of time on account of
failure of defendants to get the property redeemed. Defendants have been
shown as owners in the revenue record which is wrong and against facts
and law and the entries are liable to be corrected in favour of plaintiffs.
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -5-
7. By way of present suit, a declaration has been sought to the
fact that plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the suit property
⅓
to the extent of two shares out of 15 shares while proforma defendants
⅓
No.3 to 4 to the extent of 10 shares and proforma defendants No.5 to 7
to the extent of remaining three shares as defendants No.1 and 2 have
failed to get the suit property redeemed.
8. Defendants No.1 and 2 in their written statement have
controverted the contents of the plaint alleging that after allotment of the
suit land, their forefathers had taken the possession of the suit property as
owners and the plaintiffs or proforma defendants have no concern with
the same. Plaintiffs have also not mentioned any date or mutation
regarding the alleged mortgage and no such mortgage was ever executed
and the entries in the revenue record are wrong and they sought dismissal
of the suit.
9. Defendants No.5 to 7 have admitted the claim of plaintiffs
while defendants No.3 and 4 were given up by plaintiffs.
10. From the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed
following issues:-
“1. Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are
owners in possession of the suit property as
alleged? OPP.
1-A. Whether the entries in column no.9 of the Jamabandi,
showing “Bila Lagan Bawaja Fakul Rehan” is
wrong, null and void and is thus liable to be corrected
as alleged? OPP.
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joining or mis-joinder
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -6-
of necessary parties? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form if so its effect? OPD
4. Relief.”
Facts of Civil Suit No.160 of 1983 titled as Faqir Chand and others
Versus Ram Piari and others:
11. Case of plaintiffs is that some land was mortgaged with
possession with Ganesh Dass, Mula Mal, Girdhari Lal and Mangla Mal
by contesting defendants in Pakistan prior to partition of the country in
the year 1947 and possession was also delivered to the mortgagees and
they remained in possession over the same. After partition of the country,
defendants were allotted the suit property in village Kharian, Tehsil
Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa and its possession was handed over to Ganesh Dass
etc. in their capacity as mortgagees. Plaintiffs Ram Piari and Sukhan Bai,
both are widows of Ganesh Dass, one of the mortgagees, and they are in
possession over the suit property along with their children namely
Hardevi, Giani Bai @ Gian Bai, Raji Bai @ Rajji Bai, Bhagwan Devi,
Pushpa Devi and Jagdish Chander. It is alleged that they have become
owners in possession of the suit property in equal shares to the extent of
two shares out of the five shares i.e. 2/5th share of Ganesh Dass. The
remaining three shares out of five shares of Mula Mal were claimed on
behalf of Mula Mal’s successors-in-interest namely Bhamba Mal @
Bhamba Ram, Prabhu Dayal and Lal Chand, who have been impleaded as
proforma defendants in all the four suits. It is submitted that defendants
have failed to get the suit property redeemed within the prescribed period
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -7-
of 30 years and now the plaintiffs have become owners in possession of
the suit property by prescription of time on account of failure of
defendants to get the property redeemed. Defendants have been shown as
owners in the revenue record which are wrong and against facts and law
and the entries are liable to be corrected in favour of plaintiffs.
12. By way of present suit, a declaration has been sought to the
fact that plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the suit property
⅓
to the extent of two shares out of 15 shares while proforma defendants
⅓
No.4 and 5 to the extent of 10 shares and proforma defendants No.6 to
8 to the extent of remaining three shares as defendants No.1 and 2 have
failed to get the suit property redeemed. The plaintiffs have also
challenged the sale of suit land by defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated
20.06.1978 in favour of defendant No.3 and mutation No.1116 dated
31.07.1982 as illegal, null and void and not binding on their rights.
13. Defendants No.1 to 3 in their written statement have
controverted the contents of the plaint alleging that after allotment of the
suit land, their forefathers had taken the possession of the suit property as
owners and the plaintiffs or proforma defendants have no concern with
the same. Plaintiffs have also not mentioned any date or mutation
regarding the alleged mortgage and no such mortgage was ever executed
and the entries in the revenue record are wrong and they sought dismissal
of the suit.
14. Defendants No.6 to 8 have admitted the claim of plaintiffs
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -8-
while defendants No.4 and 5 were given up by plaintiffs.
15. From the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed
following issues:-
“1. Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are
owners in possession of the suit property as alleged in
the plaint? If so to what effect? (OPP)
1-A. Whether the entries in column no. 9 of the Jamabandis
showing "Bila Lagan Bawaja Fakul Rehan" is wrong,
null and void and is thus liable to be corrected as
alleged? (OPP)
2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder
of necessary parties? (OPD)
3. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs
u/s 35-A CPC? (OPD)
4. Relief.”
Facts of Civil Suit No.157-C of 1983 titled as Jagdish Rai and others
Versus Ram Piari and others:-
16. Case of plaintiffs is that some land was mortgaged with
possession with Ganesh Dass and Mula Mal by contesting defendants in
Pakistan prior to partition of the country in the year 1947 and possession
was also delivered to the mortgagees and they remained in possession
over the same. After partition of the country, defendants were allotted the
suit property in village Kharian, Tehsil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa and its
possession was handed over to Ganesh Dass etc. in their capacity as
mortgagees. Plaintiffs Ram Piari and Sukhan Bai, both are widows of
Ganesh Dass, one of the mortgagees, and they are in possession over the
suit property along with their children namely Hardevi, Giani Bai @ Gian
Bai, Raji Bai @ Rajji Bai, Bhagwan Devi, Pushpa Devi and Jagdish
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -9-
Chander. It is alleged that they have become owners in possession of the
suit property in equal shares to the extent of two shares out of the five
shares i.e. 2/5th share of Ganesh Dass. The remaining three shares out of
five shares of Mula Mal were claimed on behalf of Mula Mal’s
successors-in-interest namely Bhamba Mal @ Bhamba Ram, Prabhu
Dayal and Lal Chand, who have been impleaded as proforma defendants
in all the four suits. It is submitted that defendants have failed to get the
suit property redeemed within the prescribed period of 30 years and now
the plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the suit property by
prescription of time on account of failure of defendants to get the
property redeemed. Defendants have been shown as owners in the
revenue record which are wrong and against facts and law and the entries
are liable to be corrected in favour of plaintiffs.
17. By way of present suit, a declaration has been sought to the
fact that plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the suit property
in equal shares to the extent of two shares out of total five shares while
proforma defendants No.3 to 5 to the extent of remaining three shares as
defendants No.1 and 2 have failed to get the suit property redeemed.
18. Defendants No.1 and 2 in their written statement
controverted the contents of the plaint alleging that after allotment of the
suit land, their elders had taken the possession of the suit property as
owners and the plaintiffs or proforma defendants have no concern with
the same. Plaintiffs have also not mentioned any date or mutation
regarding the alleged mortgage and no such mortgage was ever executed
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -10-
and the entries in the revenue record are wrong and they sought dismissal
of the suit.
19. Defendants No.3 to 5 in their written statement admitted the
claim of the plaintiffs but thereafter, none has put in appearance on their
behalf and they were proceeded against ex parte.
20. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court
framed following issues:-
“1. Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are
owners in possession of the suit property as alleged in
the plaint? (OPP)
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder
of necessary parties? (OPD)
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form? (OPD)
4. Relief.”
Facts of Civil Suit No.159 of 1983 titled as Amir Chand Versus Ram
Piari and others:-
21. Case of plaintiffs is that some land was mortgaged with
possession with Ganesh Dass, Mula Mal, Girdhari Lal and Mangla Mal
by contesting defendant No.1 in Pakistan prior to partition of the country
in the year 1947 and possession was also delivered to the mortgagees and
they remained in possession over the same. After partition of the country,
defendants were allotted the suit property in village Kharian, Tehsil
Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa and its possession was handed over to Ganesh Dass
etc. in their capacity as mortgagees. Plaintiffs Ram Piari and Sukhan Bai,
both are widows of Ganesh Dass, one of the mortgagees, and they are in
possession over the suit property along with their children namely
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -11-
Hardevi, Giani Bai @ Gian Bai, Raji Bai @ Rajji Bai, Bhagwan Devi,
Pushpa Devi and Jagdish Chander. It is alleged that they have become
owners in possession of the suit property in equal shares to the extent of
two shares out of the five shares i.e. 2/5th share of Ganesh Dass. The
remaining three shares out of five shares of Mula Mal were claimed on
behalf of Mula Mal’s successors-in-interest namely Bhamba Mal @
Bhamba Ram, Prabhu Dayal and Lal Chand, who have been impleaded as
proforma defendants in all the four suits. It is submitted that defendants
have failed to get the property redeemed within the prescribed period of
30 years and now the plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the
suit property by prescription of time on account of failure of defendants
to get the suit property redeemed. Defendants have been shown as owners
in the revenue record which are wrong and against facts and law and the
entries are liable to be corrected in favour of plaintiffs.
22. By way of present suit, a declaration has been sought to the
fact that plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the suit property
⅓
to the extent of two shares out of 15 shares while proforma defendants
⅓
No.3 and 4 to the extent of 10 shares and proforma defendants No.5 to
7 to the extent of remaining three shares as defendants No.1 and 2 have
failed to get the suit property redeemed. Defendant No.1 has exchanged
his land with defendant No.2 vide decree dated 21.04.1981 passed by
learned Senior Sub Judge, Sirsa on the basis of which mutation No.1188
has been sanctioned on 20.01.1982. As such, the decree as well as
mutation are null and void and not binding on the rights of plaintiffs and
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -12-
proforma defendants and are liable to be set aside. Plaintiffs have no right
to challenge the decree suffered in favour of defendant No.2 as plaintiffs
and proforma defendants have no concern with the suit land.
23. Defendant No.1 in his written statement controverted the
contents of the plaint alleging that after allotment of the suit land, his
forefathers had taken the possession of the suit property as owners and
the plaintiffs or proforma defendants have no concern with the same.
Plaintiffs have also not mentioned any date or mutation regarding the
alleged mortgage and no such mortgage was ever executed and the
entries in the revenue record are wrong and they sought dismissal of the
suit.
24. Defendants No.5 to 7 have admitted the claim of plaintiffs
but thereafter none has put in appearance on their behalf and they were
proceeded against ex parte while defendants No.3 and 4 were given up by
plaintiffs.
25. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court
framed following issues:-
“1. Whether the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are
owners in possession of the suit property as alleged in
the plaint? If so to what effect? (OPP)
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties? (OPD)
3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the
present suit? (OPD)
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form? (OPD)
5. Whether the defendant no. 1 is entitled to special costs
under section 35-A of the CPC? (OPD)
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -13-
6. Relief.”
26. The parties led oral and documentary evidence in all the
suits. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on file,
the trial Court held in all the suits that the suit property was mortgaged by
contesting defendants in favour of predecessor of plaintiffs with
possession and they have failed to get the suit property redeemed within
the prescribed period of 30 years and the mortgagors have thus lost the
right to get the suit property redeemed and the plaintiffs have become
owners of the suit property by efflux of time. It has been further held that
plaintiffs have got the locus standi to file the present suit and same is
maintainable. The suits filed by the plaintiffs were decreed and it was
held that they have become owners in possession of the suit property and
decree dated 21.04.1981 and consequential mutation No.1168 in Civil
Suit No.159 of 1983 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant
No.2 were held to be illegal, null and void.
27. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants preferred first appeals
before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sirsa. The First
Appellate Court, dismissed all the appeals, returning concurrent findings
that in the absence of any written proof showing the redemption of the
plaintiffs' share on payment of the mortgage money, the period of
limitation of thirty years had expired, thereby extinguishing the
mortgagors' right of redemption and that the plaintiffs/mortgagees have
become owner of the suit properties.
28. Feeling aggrieved, the mortgagors preferred the present four
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -14-
Regular Second Appeals before this Court. At the time of admission, the
following substantial questions of law were framed:
1. Whether the impugned judgments and
decrees passed by both the learned Courts
below while recording a finding that the
plaintiffs/respondents have become owners of
the land in dispute by efflux of
time/prescription of time is legally sustainable
in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this
Court in Ram Kishan's case (supra) and the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Singh Ram's case (supra) or not?
2. Whether the civil suits for declaration
filed by the plaintiffs/respondents were barred
by limitation while challenging the revenue
entries and the subsequent transactions entered
into by the mortgagors?
29. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the material on the file .
30. The only question to be determined in all the appeals is
whether Smt. Ram Piari and the other legal heirs of Ganesh Dass had
become owners of the suit lands by efflux of time on account of the
failure of the mortgagors to get the suit properties redeemed within a
period of thirty years from the date of mortgage.
31. The term usufructuary mortgage has been defined in Section
58(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provides as under:
“ 58(d): Usufructuary Mortgage: Where the mortgagor
delivers possession or expressly or by implication binds
himself to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to
the mortgagee, and authorises him to retain such possession
until payment of the mortgage-money, and to receive the
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -15-
rents and profits accruing from the property or any part of
such rents and profits and to appropriate the same in lieu of
interest, or in payment of the mortgage-money, or partly in
lieu of interest or partly in payment of the mortgage-money,
the transaction is called an usufructuary mortgage and the
mortgagee an usufructuary mortgagee.”
32. A perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision makes it clear
that in a usufructuary mortgage, physical possession of the mortgaged
property is delivered to the mortgagee, who is authorized to retain such
possession and enjoy the rents and profits flowing therefrom until the
mortgage money is paid. In the present cases, it is the own case of the
plaintiffs that the lands were mortgaged with possession in favour of their
predecessor namely Ganesh Dass (and others) before partition of country
and that they continued to be in possession of the lands allotted to
mortgagees in lieu of land owned by them in Pakistan in village Kharian
on the basis of their mortgagee rights. There is absolutely no averment in
the plaints, nor is there any documentary evidence on record, to suggest
that any specific time limit or date was fixed between the parties to get
the suit properties redeemed. This gives rise to the sole and irresistible
conclusion that these transactions were usufructuary mortgages.
33. The legal question whether a mortgagor loses the right to
redeem a usufructuary mortgage where no time limit is fixed, or whether
the mortgagee becomes the absolute owner by prescription of time, is no
longer res integra. This Court, in a Full Bench decision in 2008(1) PLR 1
“Ram Kishan v. Sheo Ram,” exhaustively analyzed this issue and held
as under:
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -16-
(i) In the case of a usufructuary mortgage, where no
time limit is fixed to seek redemption, the right to seek
redemption does not arise on the date of the mortgage.
Instead, it arises only on the date when the mortgagor
tenders to the mortgagee, or deposits in the court, the
mortgage money or the balance thereof.
(ii) The foundational legal principle of "once a
mortgage always a mortgage" applies with full force,
meaning that a mortgage is always redeemable.
(iii) A mortgage cannot be extinguished by any
unilateral act of the mortgagee, and a usufructuary
mortgagee cannot seek a declaration of ownership in the
nature of foreclosure or claim to have become the absolute
owner of the mortgaged property.
34. The aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram
Kishan's case (supra) has been approved and upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Singh Ram (D) Thr. LRs v. Sheo Ram & Ors. (Civil
Appeal No. 5198 of 2008, decided on 21.08.2014) . Furthermore, in a
recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2025 Live Law (SC)
1252, Dalip Singh (D) through LRs & Ors. Vs. Sawan Singh (D)
through LRs & Ors. , it was categorically reaffirmed, while relying upon
Singh Ram's case (supra), that:
"In the case of a usufructuary mortgage, the period of
limitation for redemption does not commence from the date
the mortgage is created. Instead, the right to seek
redemption arises only when the mortgagor pays or tenders
the mortgage money, or when the debt is discharged from
the usufruct of the property, and the mere expiry of the
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -17-
prescribed period of thirty years does not extinguish the
mortgagor's right to redeem."
35. Applying this settled principle of law to the facts of the
present cases, it is held that since no time frame was fixed for getting the
mortgages redeemed, the right of the mortgagors to seek redemption has
not expired and the mortgagors continue to be the rightful owners of the
suit properties. Similarly pliantiffs Smt. Ram Piari and the other heirs of
Ganesh Dass continue to hold the suit lands purely as usufructuary
mortgagees in possession, and they have not acquired any right of
ownership by prescription of time.
36. Resultantly, the findings arrived at by both the courts below
that the plaintiffs had acquired absolute ownership rights over the suit
properties by prescription of time are not sustainable being contrary to
law and it is held that plaintiffs have not acquired ownership rights in the
suit property and they are in possession over the same as mortgagees
only. Consequently, findings on issue No.1 in all the civil suits is
reversed and same are decided against plaintiffs and question of law also
stands answered in favour of defendants/appellants.
37. Now, coming to the subsequent transactions challenged by
the plaintiffs.
(1) In RSA No. 1249 of 1990 , the exchange of land entered into
by the mortgagor Amir Chand with Ram Nath vide the civil court decree
dated 21.04.1981, and the consequent Mutation No. 1188 sanctioned on
20.01.1982, were set aside by the courts below at the instance of the
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -18-
plaintiffs.
(ii) In RSA No. 804 of 1990 , registered Sale Deed (Vasika No. 933)
dated 20.06.1978 executed by the mortgagors in favor of Gheru Ram
transferring the suit land, and the subsequent Mutation No. 1116, were
also set aside by the courts below.
38. However, under issue No.1, it has been held that
plaintiffs/respondents have failed to establish their ownership rights over
the suit properties and as such, they have no locus standi to seek a
declaration of ownership or cancellation of transactions entered into by
the rightful owners (the mortgagors)/defendants on the basis of their own
title. Although any sale deed or exchange of land executed by the
mortgagors is inherently subject to the pre-existing mortgage security, the
mortgagors as absolute owners of the equity of redemption are fully
competent to alienate, sell, or exchange their proprietary rights in the
land. The rights of the usufructuary mortgagees to retain possession of
the land until the mortgage is redeemed in accordance with law remain
completely unaffected by such transactions. Thus, the findings recorded
by the Courts below setting aside the aforesaid decree, sale deed and
consequential mutations, at the instance of the plaintiffs/respondents,
cannot be sustained in law. The same are accordingly reversed and the
relevant issues are decided against the plaintiffs/respondents.
39. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the substantial
questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants and against the
respondents. Consequently, all four Regular Second Appeals are allowed
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

RSA-904-1990 (O&M) and
other connected cases -19-
with costs. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the
learned Courts below in all four connected civil suits are set aside and the
suits filed by the plaintiffs/respondents are ordered to be dismissed with
costs.
40. Decree-sheets be drawn accordingly.
41. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case
files.
10.09.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Priyanka Thakur JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
PRIYANKA THAKUR
2026.09.14 19:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document