LexSAMPURAN SINGH AND ORS. versus NIRANJAN KAUR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • ~ SAMPURAN SINGH AND ORS. A v. NIRANJAN KAUR AND ORS. FEBRUARY 23, 1999 (A.P. MISRA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] B "" ~ Limitatio11 Act, 1963 : Article 61 (a }-Oral mortgage--Redemptio11 orlmmovable property morlgaged for Rs. 53 i11 1893 before exte11sio11 of S. 59 of Tra11sfer of Property c Act, which required registratio11 of a mortgage, to State of Pu11jab-Held : Such mortgage is valid a11d legally e11f orceable-As there is 110 restrictio11 in the mortgage deed, right to redeem accrues from the very date of execution of valid mortgage-Therefore, limitatio11 for fili11g suit expired i11 195:r-Hence, suit filed in 1980 is time-ba1Ted-Tra11sfer of Property Act, 1872, S. 59. D ,. Sectio11 18-Applicability-Liability-Ack11owledgement of-Held : For limitatio11 to revive afresh, the acknowledgement must be during subsiste11ce of period of limitation. Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913. E Mortgage-Redemption of-Period of limitation-Applicability of Act-Held : Act has no co-relation with period of limitation in case of redemptio11 of niortgages-Hence, not applicable to redemptio11 of mortgages. One R and others originally mortgaged the suit land for Rs. 53 by A- an oral mortgage in favour of B and others in March 1983 in the State of F > Punjab Prior to the extension of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1872, which required registration of a mortgage. Mutation was sanctioned. The appellants had purchased the suit land in· the year 1959 from the original mortgagors by execution of registered sale deeds. Subsequently, on 11.1.1960 the mortgages sold their mortgagee rights byway of registered G sale deed to the respondents. .~ The appellants filed a suit in 1980 for possession by way of redemp- ... lion of the suit land. The respondents contended that 'the suit was barred by limitation. According to the appellants till 1960-61 it were the mortgagors who remained in possession of the suit land and were getting H 841 842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R. A the same cultivated though their tenants. The appellants further con- tended that since in the year 1960 the respondents had acknowledged the existence of the original mortgage, a fresh period of limitation for redemp- tion of the mortgage in question had begun to run from 11.1.1960. The Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that a fresh period of limitation B under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 started from 11.1.1960. The first Appellate Court set aside this judgment. The High Court dismissed the second appeal. Hence this Appeal. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that in an oral mortgage till the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913 came into C force, there was no period of limitation and the right for redemption accrued only after this Act came into force, and so limitation could not start before the date when this Act came into force and thus as in the present case neither mortgagors offered to pay the mortgage amount nor mortgagees communicated that the mortgage amount had been paid, therefore, right to redeem mortgage had not accrued; and that right to D redeem under Article 6l(a) of Part V of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 only accrued when either the mortgagors tendered the amount of mortgage ur the mortgagees communicated satisfaction of the mortgage amount through the usufruct from the land. E Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The oral mortgage was executed in March 1893 in the State of Punjab, prior to the extension of the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ~hich requires registration of a mortgage.' ·Therefore, the transaction was valid and legally enforceable. F Further, the suit land was mortgaged with possession for Rs. 53 i.e. less than Rs. 100. So the mortgage could have been effected either by a registered instrument or by delivery of possession of the land in ques- tion. Hence, a valid mortgage came into existence on the very day of its execution. [846-D; 845-H; 846-A] G Sri Chand v. Nathi (P & H), CR No. 345 of (1981) decided on 21.1.1983, approved. ' lnder Singh v. Kishno, (1966) Punj LR 408 (P & H), overruled. H Puntshottam Dass v. S.M. Dedouza, AIR (1950) Ori 213 and C. ' .. SAMPURNAN SINGH v. NIRANJAN KAUR 843 Beepatahumma v. V.S. Kadambolithaya, [1964] 5 SCR 836, held inap- A plicable. 2. The period of limitation starts from the very day of a valid mortgage. The c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.