1999 (2) TMI 691 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit for redemption is barred by time.
2. Whether the fresh period of limitation would revive from 11th January 1960 due to the acknowledgment of the mortgage.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the suit for redemption is barred by time.

The primary contention raised by the mortgagor-appellants was whether their suit for redemption is barred by time. The original oral mortgage was executed in 1893 for Rs. 53. The appellants argued that the limitation period for redemption should start from 11th January 1960, when the original mortgagee sold his rights to the respondents, acknowledging the mortgage's existence. The Trial Court decreed the suit for redemption, holding it within time by considering the acknowledgment in 1960 as the starting point for a fresh limitation period. However, the first Appellate Court and the High Court held that the suit was time-barred, stating that the limitation period started from the date of the original mortgage in 1893, thus expiring in 1953. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the limitation period starts from the date of the valid mortgage, which was March 1893, making the suit time-barred.

Issue 2: Whether the fresh period of limitation would revive from 11th January 1960 due to the acknowledgment of the mortgage.

The appellants argued that the acknowledgment of the mortgage by the original mortgagees in the registered document dated 11th January 1960 should revive the limitation period u/s 18 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that acknowledgment must occur before the expiration of the prescribed period for it to revive the limitation period. Since the limitation period had already expired in 1953, the acknowledgment in 1960 could not revive it. The Court also dismissed the appellants' reliance on the Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913, and other legal precedents, affirming that the right to redeem accrues from the date of the valid mortgage unless restricted by the mortgage deed.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court found no merit in the appellants' submissions and dismissed the appeal, holding that the suit for redemption was barred by time, with costs on the parties.