Dalip Singh(D) Through Lrs vs Sawan Singh (D) Through Lrs

2025 INSC 1498 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 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

respondents/defendants. The said order was allowed by the Signature Not Verified 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