RAMESH CHAND Vs. BRIJ MOHAN AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this Regular Second Appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 9.6.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar, who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court which decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession by way of redemption by holding that the suit is within limitation. Resultantly, the appeal of the defendant was dismissed by holding that the plaintiff-mortgagor is entitled to redeem the property on payment of mortgage money together with other amounts as calculated by the learned Civil Judge.

(2.) THE sole point which requires determination is whether the suit was within limitation or not. Admittedly, the mortgage in dispute was executed on 8.12.1954 and the same was registered on 21.12.1954. The suit was instituted on 11.12.1984. The first appellate Court for the reasons given in paras 20 to 24 of its judgment dismissed the appeal by holding that the suit of the plaintiff was within limitation, and the said reasons are reproduced as under :-

(3.) THE argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is acceptable to this Court only to a limited extent that the registration of the document will relate back to the date of the execution. However, this Court is not in a position to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was beyond limitation. A document has to be interpreted as a whole and has to be read as a whole. The relevant clause of mortgage has already been reproduced above, which clearly indicates that a clog was created upon the predecessor of the plaintiff that he will not be able to get the property redeemed for a period of 8 years. The mortgage was with possession. During this period of 8 years interest and rent will be considered at par. In case the plaintiff does not get the property redeemed within 8 years, then the mortgagor would pay a sum of Rs. 2,850/- by way of interest and interest vis-a-vis the amount of Rs. 4,000/- shall be at par. Meaning thereby the cause of action will arise to the mortgagor after a lapse of 8 years and not prior to that. In this view of the matter, if 30 years are counted from 8.12.1963, the suit of the plaintiff could be instituted upto 8.12.1993. In these circumstances I endorse the view taken up by the Courts below and hold that the suit of the plaintiff was within limitation. Resultantly, I do not see any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgments. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.