BHANDARU RAM Vs. SUKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant and upheld the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Bilaspur, dated 27.04.1992, whereby he decreed the suit of the plaintiff and a decree for possession through redemption of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff was passed.

(2.) THE appeal was admitted on a number of questions of law attached with the grounds of appeal, but I feel that these questions do not arise in the appeal and the only question of law which arises is whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was within limitation and whether any limitation is prescribed for a suit where possession is sought by redemption of a usufructuary mortgage?

(3.) AT the time of hearing of this appeal, the defendant raised a preliminary contention that as per law laid down by this Court, there is no limitation prescribed for filing a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage. I feel that this preliminary objection must be decided first, because if I uphold the same, the suit would be within limitation whether the mortgage deed was executed in 1958 or 1963. If I do not agree with the plaintiff-respondent, then also I cannot decide the matter and it will have to be referred to a larger Bench, since this Court in earlier decisions has taken the view that there is no limitation prescribed for filing a suit in the case of usufructuary mortgage.