The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by appellants-defendants challenging a decree for redemption of an oral mortgage. The court rejected the time-bar argument by relying on Supreme Court precedent stating no limitation exists for seeking redemption.
The second appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.107 of 2015 O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.107 of 2015 O&M) Date of decision: 14.01.2015
Manjit Kaur and others
... Appellants
Vs.
Hardev Singh and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
This regular second appeal is directed at the instance of appellants-defendants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs seeking redemption of oral mortgage has been decreed by both the Courts below.
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-defendants contends that respondents-plaintiffs have not been able to prove the mutation with regard to mortgage as well as factum of mortgage prior to the consolidation. He further submits that suit has been filed only in the year 2008 whereas, the respondentsplaintiffs alleged mortgage was prior to the consolidation, therefore, the suit was hopelessly time barred.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is devoid of merits as the respondents-plaintiffs in support of their
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.01.22 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.107 of 2015 O&M)
2
claim placed on record jamabandis for the years 1961-62 to 2003-04, Ex.P1 to Ex.P-9 and in all the jamabandis, factum of mortgage is reflected. PW-1-Hardev Singh, when appeared in the witness box defendants-appellants were not able to cause any dent much less to the examination-in-chief with regard to alleged mortgage.
In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Singh Ram (D) through LRs vs. Sheo Ram and others 2014(4) R.C.R (Civil) 179, there is no limitation for seeking redemption by the mortgagee. Admittedly, appellants-defendants are in possession of the property and they had set up a plea of adverse possession which was negated.
Both the Courts below rendered a finding of fact and law and there is no illegality much less perversity in the findings of the Courts below.
No substantial question of law arises for adjudication of
the present appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE
January 14, 2015 savita
SAVITA DEVI KADIAN 2015.01.22 13:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit filed in 2008 for redemption of an mouthortgage alleged to be prior to 1961 was hopelessly time barred.
Whether the rejection of the plea of adverse possession by mortgagors affected the decree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Singh Ram (D) through LRs vs. Sheo Ram and othersRelied on¶20
Singh Ram (D) through LRs vs. Sheo Ram and others 2014(4) R.C.R (Civil) 179
Manjit Kaur and others
Hardev Singh and others
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
