SINGH RAM Vs. SHEO RAM
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
August 21,2014
SINGH RAM
Appellant
VERSUS
SHEO RAM
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MOHD. SHER KHAN V. SETH SWAMI DAYAL [REFERRED TO]SIDHAKAMAL NAYAN RAMANUJ DAS VS. BIRA NAIK [REFERRED TO]
GANGA DHAR VS. SHANKAR LAL [REFERRED TO]
MRUTUNJAY PANI VS. NARMADA BALA SASMAL [REFERRED TO]
PRITHI NATH SINGH VS. SURAF AHIR [REFERRED TO]
NARANDAS KARSONDAS VS. S A KAMTAM [REFERRED TO]
JAYASINGH DNYANU MHOPREKAR VS. KRISHNA BABAJI PATIL [REFERRED TO]
POMAL KANJI GOVINDJI VS. VRAJLAL KARSANDAS PUROHIT [REFERRED TO]
PANCHANANSHARMA VS. BASUDEO PRASAD JAGANANI [REFERRED TO]
PARICHHAN MISTRY VS. ACHHIABAR MISTRY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. RAM RAKHA [REFERRED TO]
SAMPURAN SINGH VS. NIRANJAN KAUR [REFERRED TO]
ACHALDAS DURGAJI OSWAL VS. RAMVILAS GANGABISAN HEDA [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS VS. OM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAKARAN VS. M AZHAGIR PILLAI [OVERRULED]
BHANDARU RAM DECEASED THROUGH HIS L R RATTAN LAL VS. SUKH RAM [OVERRULED]
RAM PRASAD VS. BISHAMBHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
NILKANTH BALWANT NATU VS. VIDYA NARASINH BHARATHI SWAMI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
G. VASU VS. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION WING [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-374] [REFERRED TO]GIRDHARI AND ANOTHER VS. KANS RAJ [LAWS(P&H)-2018-5-198] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK SABLOK VS. KAMLA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-7-299] [REFERRED TO]
OM PARKASH AND ORS. VS. MADAN GOPAL GOMBAR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-763] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. VS. AMI CHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
METTILBAI VS. BALAMMAL; BRIGHT; THOMAS; LILLYBAI; VIMALABAI; SUGANTHABAI; DEVASUNDARAM; SAM SUNDAR; JAYA; HEMALATHA; RAKEL; CHARLET; REJITHAM; JEBAMONI; KANAGAMMAL NADACHI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-335] [REFERRED]
MUKHRAM SINGH VS. THE D.D.C. JAUNPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-251] [REFERRED TO]
DALIP KUMAR VS. DES RAJ [LAWS(HPH)-2019-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
R. RAMA REDDY VS. B. NARAYANAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-5-123] [REFERRED TO]
SAM DAVID VS. MONI [LAWS(MAD)-2022-8-213] [REFERRED TO]
ALLA SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS VS. JASWANT KAUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2020-3-25] [REFERRED TO]
NAGINA SINGH VS. DHARAM BIR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2024-5-55] [REFERRED TO]
SAHIB SINGH VS. GURDEV SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-417] [REFERRED TO]
BIRU (D) THROUGH LRS. VS. WATTNI (D) WIDOW OF BHAGTOO & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHANDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE MARAI SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-4-134] [REFERRED TO]
GHOUSE BAIG VS. MAHAMUDA BEGUM (DIED) [LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-456] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. KUNDAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-3-551] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM KAUR AND ORS. VS. MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
BIR SINGH VS. RAM KANWAR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2018-8-79] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI JAGAT RAM VS. SHRI LACHHMI CHAND AND ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-203] [REFERRED TO]
K. CHINNASAMY VS. RAMATHAL (DIED) [LAWS(MAD)-2024-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNI @ ANITA AND OTHERS VS. BIMLA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-436] [REFERRED]
RATHNAMMA AND ORS. VS. V. PRAHALADA RAO [LAWS(KAR)-2015-10-120] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS VS. SIDHARTH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-5-398] [REFERRED TO]
GURDIAL SINGH AND OTHERS VS. GURBHAGWANT SINGH ALIAS GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-707] [REFERRED]
MOHAN LAL S/O CHAMPA LAL AND ANR. VS. MOHAN LAL S/O RAGHUNATH LOHAR AND ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-3-203] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. MOHAN LAL AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-1-100] [REFERRED TO]
DHARU RAM VS. LADHA RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2023-1-117] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER VS. MAHAIN SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2018-10-230] [REFERRED TO]
HARBHAJAN SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS VS. NAURANG SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ANR [LAWS(P&H)-2018-12-101] [REFERRED TO]
SANTA SINGH VS. MAHINDER KAUR [LAWS(HPH)-2022-7-18] [REFERRED TO]
PURAN DUTT & OTHERS VS. STATE OF H P [LAWS(HPH)-2017-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAND VS. SHEELAN DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2024-5-46] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN BOSCO VS. VARGHESE [LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-378] [REFERRED TO]
SADHU RAM VS. BIASO DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-184] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM SINGH VS. FAQUIR CHAND AND ORS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-7-66] [REFERRED TO]
GURNAM SINGH AND ORS. VS. HAZARA SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
DALEL SINGH AND OTHERS VS. RAMPAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2019-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
SAMPURAN SINGH VS. RAJINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-253] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA RAM VS. VISHNU DUTT AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-209] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHAND ALIAS RAMESHWAR VS. PREM SINGH & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2015-8-135] [REFERRED TO]
HARISHCHANDRA VS. VIJAYKUMAR [LAWS(MPH)-2019-7-128] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KUMAR VS. RANI DEVI AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
HARMINDER SINGH(D) VS. SURJIT KAUR(D) [LAWS(SC)-2022-4-164] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHNA KUMARI VS. SOHAN SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-212] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY VS. JAIRAM [LAWS(MPH)-2017-9-149] [REFERRED TO]
VEERI UMMAL VS. RAJENDRAN BABU [LAWS(MAD)-2023-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
P.SUNDARRAJ VS. VELU [LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-498] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHWATI VS. RAM KARAN [LAWS(P&H)-2018-11-131] [REFERRED TO]
GURTEJ SINGH VS. PARAMJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2022-4-220] [REFERRED TO]
MATADEEN (SINCE DECEASED) VS. DEEN DAYAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2019-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DAS VS. SRICHAND S/O SHRI KALYAN MAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-11-263] [REFERRED TO]
BIASO DEVI AND OTHERS VS. SADHU RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2017-12-192] [REFERRED TO]
RAM RATTAN VS. DEVI RAM [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-126] [REFERRED TO]
BANTA SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-483] [REFERRED TO]
BHARPUR SINGH VS. SUKHJINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-74] [REFERRED TO]
MERCY VS. DESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-9-119] [REFERRED TO]
KAHAN SINGH VS. GURDIP SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2022-10-162] [REFERRED TO]
KARAM SINGH VS. PIARA SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2017-3-142] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted in SLPs.
(2.)These matters have been put up before this Bench in pursuance of the order passed by a Bench of two Judges on 18.08.2008, as under:-
"As it appears that observations made by this Court in Prabhakaran & Ors. vs. M. Azhagiri Pillai & Ors., 2006 4 SCC 484, in regard to the interpretation and/or application of Article 61 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 are contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in a large number of decisions, including Jayasingh Dhyanu Mhoprekar & Anr. vs. Krishna Babaji Patil & Anr., 1985 4 SCC 162] as also various decisions referred to by the Full Bench of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench."
Before adverting to the question of reconciling conflicting opinions in various decisions, including the two decisions referred to above, we consider it appropriate to mention that by the impugned judgment, the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, considered the question "whether there is any time limit for usufructuary mortgagor to seek redemption - and decided the said question in the negative, in favour of the respondent-mortgagor as follows:-
"Therefore, we answer the questions framed to hold that in case of usufructuary mortgage, where no time limit is fixed to seek redemption, the right to seek redemption would not arise on the date of mortgage but will arise on the date when the mortgagor pays or tenders to the mortgagee or deposits in Court, the mortgage money or the balance thereof. Thus, it is held that once a mortgage always a mortgage and is always redeemable."
The correctness of the above view is the subject matter of consideration before this Court.
(3.)The predecessor of the respondents mortgaged the suit property on 11.08.1903 to the predecessor of the appellants for a sum of Rs.80/-. The appellant-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the suit land having not been redeemed for a period of more than 60 years, the defendants lost all rights, title and interest therein and the appellants became the owners by prescription.
(2.)These matters have been put up before this Bench in pursuance of the order passed by a Bench of two Judges on 18.08.2008, as under:-
"As it appears that observations made by this Court in Prabhakaran & Ors. vs. M. Azhagiri Pillai & Ors., 2006 4 SCC 484, in regard to the interpretation and/or application of Article 61 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 are contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in a large number of decisions, including Jayasingh Dhyanu Mhoprekar & Anr. vs. Krishna Babaji Patil & Anr., 1985 4 SCC 162] as also various decisions referred to by the Full Bench of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the matter should be heard by a larger Bench."
Before adverting to the question of reconciling conflicting opinions in various decisions, including the two decisions referred to above, we consider it appropriate to mention that by the impugned judgment, the Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, considered the question "whether there is any time limit for usufructuary mortgagor to seek redemption - and decided the said question in the negative, in favour of the respondent-mortgagor as follows:-
"Therefore, we answer the questions framed to hold that in case of usufructuary mortgage, where no time limit is fixed to seek redemption, the right to seek redemption would not arise on the date of mortgage but will arise on the date when the mortgagor pays or tenders to the mortgagee or deposits in Court, the mortgage money or the balance thereof. Thus, it is held that once a mortgage always a mortgage and is always redeemable."
The correctness of the above view is the subject matter of consideration before this Court.
(3.)The predecessor of the respondents mortgaged the suit property on 11.08.1903 to the predecessor of the appellants for a sum of Rs.80/-. The appellant-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that the suit land having not been redeemed for a period of more than 60 years, the defendants lost all rights, title and interest therein and the appellants became the owners by prescription.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.