New Delhi: In a significant ruling on property law and mortgage redemption rights, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, reaffirming the principle that in cases of a usufructuary mortgage where no time limit is fixed for redemption, the period of limitation does not commence from the date of creation of the mortgage but from the date when the mortgagor pays or tenders the mortgage money to the mortgagee.
The order was passed by a Bench comprising Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan during the hearing of Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2010, arising from a long-standing property dispute involving mortgaged agricultural land in Punjab.
This judgment follows a protracted legal battle spanning nearly five decades and involving multiple rounds of litigation across various judicial forums. The case originated from a dispute concerning the redemption of mortgaged property admeasuring 114 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land situated at Village Tamkot, Tehsil Mansa, District Bathinda.
Background of the Dispute
The appellants herein, the original plaintiffs, were the mortgagees of the disputed property, which had been mortgaged by the ancestors of the respondents (original defendants). The respondents/defendants filed an application under Section 6 of the Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913, seeking redemption of the mortgaged property. The Collector allowed the application vide order dated 17.09.1975, thereby permitting redemption in favour of the applicants.
Aggrieved by the Collector’s order, the appellants/original plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 291 of 1975. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs vide order dated 22.09.1976, holding that the application for redemption filed by the defendants was barred by limitation. Consequently, the Collector’s order dated 17.09.1975 was set aside.
Judicial Journey Through Multiple Forums
The respondents/defendants challenged the Trial Court’s decision before the Additional District Judge, Bathinda, in Civil Appeal No. 107/R.T.-99 of 76/77, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.12.1980.
Undeterred, the respondents/defendants filed Regular Second Appeal No. 1053 of 1981 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal vide order dated 18.09.2001, holding that the respondents’ right to redeem the mortgage was not barred by limitation and that a fresh cause of action for redemption accrued based on adjustments made to the loan from the income arising out of the land.
The appellants/original plaintiffs thereafter approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6084 of 2002. The apex court allowed the appeal vide order dated 16.04.2009 and remanded the matter to the High Court on procedural grounds, as the High Court had failed to frame substantial questions of law before allowing the appeal.
High Court’s Second Decision
After framing substantial questions of law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court once again allowed the appeal vide order dated 25.01.2010 in favour of the respondents/defendants. Relying upon its earlier judgment in Ram Kishan and Others v. Sheo Ram and Others, 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 334, the High Court observed:
“In the case of a usufructuary mortgage, where no time limit is fixed to seek redemption, the right to seek redemption would not arise from the date of mortgage but from the date when the mortgagor pays or tenders to the mortgagee, or deposits in court, the mortgage money or the balance thereof.”
Consequently, the Collector’s order dated 17.09.1975 was restored, and Civil Suit No. 291 of 1975 filed by the appellants/original plaintiffs was dismissed.
Supreme Court’s Final Decision
During the course of submissions before the Supreme Court, reliance was placed on the judgment in Singh Ram (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Sheo Ram and Others, delivered by a three-judge Bench and reported in (2014) 9 SCC 185.
Upon examining the said judgment, the Bench reiterated the settled principle that in the case of a usufructuary mortgage, the period of limitation does not run from the date of creation of the mortgage but from the date of payment of the mortgage amount—either out of the usufruct, partly out of the usufruct, or by payment or deposit by the mortgagor, as provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
The Court further observed that until such payment is made, the period of limitation does not commence under Section 61(a) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. It noted:
“Mere expiry of the period prescribed thereunder would not extinguish the mortgagor’s right of redemption, and consequently, the right of the mortgagee to seek a declaration of title and ownership over the mortgaged property remains unaffected.”
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the present case would necessarily result in dismissal of the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs and restoration of the Collector’s order.
Accepting the submission, the Supreme Court observed:
“We follow the aforesaid dictum in the present case and consequently dismiss the appeal filed by the plaintiff(s). We affirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff(s).”
The Court also vacated the interim stay order that had been operating during the pendency of the appeal and directed that the parties shall bear their own respective costs.
Case Details:
Case Name: Dalip Singh (D) Through LRs & Ors. v. Sawan Singh (D) Through LRs & Ors.
Civil Appeal No.: 3358 of 2010
Citation: 2025 INSC 1498
Coram: Hon’ble Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Justice R. Mahadevan
Date of Judgment: November 12, 2025
