REET MOHINDER SINGH SEKHON versus MOHINDER PARKASH & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 610 · Decided: 31-07-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
REET MOHINDER SINGH SEKHON 
v. 
MOHINDER PARKASH & ORS. 
JULY 31, 1989 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Limitation Act 1908: Suit for redemption of mortgage-limitation 
period. 
Limitation Act, 1963: Sections 19 and 30-When recital in sale 
1 
deed constitutes an acknowledgment for computation of perioa of~ 
c~~-
. 
The appellant is the successor in interest of the mortgagor of the 
suit property. The suit property was mortgaged on 22.5.1886. In. the 
normal course the suit for redemption should have been r.ted on or 
D before 22.5.1946, the limitation for such a suit being 60 years under the 
Limitation Act, 1906. The appellant, ho)'l'ever, r.ted the suit for 
redemption only on 28.12.1968. The defence to tbe plea of limitation 
urged was that the son of the original mortgagee, while selling the 
property on l.11.1913, bad specifically acknowledged the right of the 
mortgagor to redeem the property. It was clalmed that this acknow-
l__ 
E 
ledgment constituted a fresh starting point for computing the period of 
limitation. The Trial Court accepted the plea and granted decree for 
redemption. The Additional District Judge however accepted the 
appeal of the respondents. The High Court, in appeal, confirmed the 
order of the Additional District Judge and held that the sale deed had 
nowhere acknowledged the right of the mortgagor to redeem the land. 
F 
G 
Before this Court, it was contended oe behalf of the appellant that 
the recital in the sale deed clearly contained a specific acknowledgment 
by the mortgagee of a subsisting right of redemption in the mortgagor. 
On the other band, it was contended that tbe said _recital did not serve 
as an acknowledgment. It was further urged by the respondents that 
even otherwise the suit should have been r.ted within 7 years of the 
coming into force of the Limitation Act, 1963, i.e., on or before 
1-4.1971, and that it was actually instituted only on 18.4.1973. 
Allowing the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Additional 
District Judge and the High Court, and restoring the decree for 
H 
redemption passed by the Trial Court, this Court, 
610 
-
' ,, __ . 
. 
R.M.S. SEKHON r. MOHINDER PARKASH IRANGANATHAN, J.] 
61 l 
HELD: (I) The period of limitation cannot be extended by a mere 
A 
passing recital regarding the factom of the mortgage but the statement 
on which the plea of an acknowledgment is based must relate lo a 
sobsistiog liability. The words used must indicate the jural relationship 
between the parties and it must appear that such a statement is made 
with the intention of admitting such jural relationship. [613G-614A) 
Tilak Ram v. Nathu, AIR 1967 S.C. 935, referred to. 
(2) lo the instant case, it is not correct to treat the recitals in the 
-~ document as a mere narration of the previous mortgage that had been 
created on the property. The words speU out a clear intention that the 
moneys doe ooder the mortgage still remained unpaid and also that the 
mortgagor had a subsisting right of redemption which he could enforce 
against the mortgagee. [614E-F) 
(3) lo the Trial Court the plaintiff-appeUaot had adverted to the 
provisions of the .Limitation Act, 1963 and the position that the suit 
sboold have been filed within 7 years of the application of the new Act, 
and had orged that the suit was within time. The Trial Court had 
accepted the contention of the plaintiff-appeUaot on this point. It could 
not have been so accepted if the suit had in fact been iostitnted only in 
1973. lo the cause title of the suit in the Trial Court the date of iostltn-
B 
c 
D 
tioo is set oot as 28.12.1968/18.4.1973. This position does not appear to 
have been specificaUy challenged either in the Trial Court or in the first 
E 
Appellate Court. The High Court. in its judgment has pointed out that 
-~-
the snit had been filed on 28th of December, 1968. In this state of the 
record, this Court has to proceed on the basis that the suit had been 
filed OD 28th of December, 1968 and therefore to hold that the suit had 
been filed in time. [61SB-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3108 
of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.1.86 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1510of1977. 
~ 
Harbans Lal and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Appellant. 
Jitender Sharma for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATHAN, J. We grant leave in the Sp~ial Leave Peti-
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 3
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.