BAPURAO Vs. JAGANNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs whose suit for redemption of a mortgage has been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the purpose of the present appeal are that a mortgage was executed by the ancestors of the plaintiffs in favour of the ancestors of respondents Nos. 1 to 6. The suit for redemption was filed some -time in 1956. One of the contentions raised by the defendants was that under Art. 63 of the Gwalior State Limitation Act the period of limitation for filing a suit for redemption or for recovery of possession of mortgaged property was 30 years. This period of limitation expired in the year 1937 and in view of the provisions of S. 26 of the Gwalior State Limitation Act which corresponds to S. 28 of the Indian Limitation Act the right of the mortgagor to the mortgaged property had itself became extinguished. This contention has been upheld by the Courts below.

(3.) IN the case of Induraj vs. Shivlal A.I.R. 1925 Bom. 339) a suit was filed in the year 1916 to redeem and recover possesson of property said to have been mortgaged by a mortgage -deed dated June 8, 1761. The plaintiffs relied upon an acknowledgement said to have been made by the descendants of the mortgagee in 1858. It was held that the acknowledgement having been made after sixty years after the date of the mortgage the remedy had become barred by virtue of S. 29 of the Act of 1971. It was further held following the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Fatimatulnissa Begum vs Sundar Das I. L. R 27 Cal. 1004) that at the expiration of the period granted to any person for institution of a suit for possession of any property the right to such property should be deemed to have been extinguished.