In this second appeal, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that no substantial question of law arose as the lower courts' findings were correct regarding redemption of mortgage.
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.753 of 2016 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.753 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision.20.12.2018
Rameshwar (since deceased) through LRs and another
....Appellants
Vs
Beer Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Virendra Rana, Advocate for the appellants.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
The appellants-defendants have not been successful in defending the suit for redemption of registered mortgage deed dated 27.07.1950 reflected in the mutation before the trial Court as well as in appeal.
Mr. Rana, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the suit was filed in the year 2012. By that time, limitation of 30 years for redemption of mortgage had elapsed and therefore, suit was not maintainable.
I am afraid aforementioned argument is not sustainable, for, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Ram Vs. Sheo Ram 2014 (9) SCC 185, when there is no time line to redeem the mortgaged land, there is no limitation for redemption of mortgage.
In this view of the matter, concurrent finding of fact and law rendered by the Courts below cannot be faulted with, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court.
PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.01.03 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No.753 of 2016 (O&M)
-2-
No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.
| (AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| December 20, | 2018 |
| Pankaj* | |
| Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes |
|
| Whether Reportable No |
PANKAJ KUMAR 2019.01.03 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit for redemption of mortgage deed filed after 30 years is maintainable when no time line for redemption exists.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Singh Ram Vs. Sheo RamReferred¶15
Singh Ram Vs. Sheo Ram 2014 (9) SCC 185 · Who else cites this
Rameshwar (since deceased) through LRs and another
Beer Singh and others
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
