Balwant Singh vs Ranjit Singh And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 7222 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balwant Singh vs Ranjit Singh And Ors on 4 April, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050020




RSA-2167-2010 (O&M)                     1                 2024:PHHC:050020

152 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                        RSA-2167-2010 (O&M)
                                        Date of decision: 04.04.2024
Balwant Singh
                                               ....Appellant

            Versus

Ranjit Singh and others
                                              ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:-   Mr. J.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant

            Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate for respondent no.11 and 12

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

1. A larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Singh Ram (dead )

through LRs vs. Sheo Ram and others 2014 AIR (SC) 3447 has laid

down that in case of usufuctuary mortgage, the mortgagee is not entitled

to claim declaration that he has become owner of the mortgaged

property by efflux of time by calculating the limitation from the date the

mortgage was created.

2. In this Regular Second Appeal, the plaintiff assails the

correctness of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, which,

in turn has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

In substance, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming to have become owner of

2/3rd share of the land measuring 110 kanals 16 marlas on the ground

that the mortgage dated 08.07.1954 has not been redeemed for a period

of more than 30 years. Hence, he has become owner by efflux of time.

The trial court decreed the suit, however, the First Appellate Court while

relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Kishan and

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:050020

RSA-2167-2010 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:050020

others vs. Sheo Ram and others 2008 (1) PLR 1 held that the

mortgagee will remain as such for all times to come and the period of

limitation for filing the suit will not begin to run from the date of the

mortgage. The conclusion drawn in Ram Kishan's case (supra) has

been upheld by a larger Bench of Supreme Court in Singh Ram's case

(supra). The learned counsel representing the appellant has failed to

draw the attention of the Court to any substantive error in the judgment

passed by the First Appellate Court.

3. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere

is made out.

4. Hence, dismissed.

5. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

 04.04.2024                                     (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :         Yes/No
Whether reportable :                Yes/No




                                  2 of 2