IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 107 RSA-6-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision.:13.05.2025 Rampat …..Appellant Vs. Devender Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Suit for declaraon filed by plainff Ram Pat (appellant herein) regarding property in dispute was dismissed by the trial Court on 17.09.2015 and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on 27.08.2019. Against this concurrent finding, plainff has approached this Court by way of present Regular Second Appeal. 2. Admi-edly, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had mortgaged the suit property with possession with the predecessors-in- interest of the plainff prior to 1879. 3. The case of the plainff is that mortgage period was for two years and as predecessors-in-interest of the defendants or the defendants failed to get the mortgage redeemed, therefore, the relaonship of mortgagor and mortgagee had come to an end and plainff had become absolute owner of the suit property as limitaon period for redempon of mortgage being 30 years, had already lapsed. 4. Defendants opposed the claim submi2ng that no period of redempon was ever fixed. They denied that mortgage was for a fix period of 02 years and as such, it was claimed that there was no limitaon for redempon. It was also submi-ed that land in queson was mortgaged NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.14 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-6-2020 (O&M) -2- with possession without fixaon of the mortgage amount or the period of redempon and it was in these circumstances that peon for redempon before the SDM/Collector was filed by the defendants for fixaon of the mortgage amount and that said peon is pending adjudicaon. 5. A8er framing necessary issues and taking evidence, both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. 6. The Courts below found that there was no evidence to support the plainff's claim that the suit property had been mortgaged by the defendants’ ancestors to the plainff’s ancestors for a period of two years. Apart from the plainff’s own unsubstanated statement (PW1) regarding the duraon of the mortgage, no other evidence was presented to prove the specific period for redempon. In light of this, and given that no fixed term for redempon was established and the mortgage was one with possession, the Courts below concluded that the transacon constuted a usufructuary mortgage. Consequently, the mortgagor's right to redeem the property could not be exnguished by the mere passage of me, and the mortgagee could not claim ownership solely by virtue of such lapse. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant could not convince this Court regarding any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid concurrent findings as recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based on proper appreciaon of evidence. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 13, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.14 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document