K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THERE is no representation for the appellant in RSA No. 1037 of 1983. Learned counsel for the appellant in RSA No. 1498 of 1983 is present. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in appeal: - Whether the mortgagee could foreclose a redemption of a mortgage by contending that the property had not been redeemed within 30 years from the date of mortgage and hence barred by limitation?
(2.) BOTH these cases are at the instance of purchasers of equity of redemption from the original owners -mortgagors of the property. They were defendants in the suit and the suit had been filed by the successor of the mortgagee claiming that they have become owners of property by virtue of the fact that the mortgagors are not redeemed the property within a period of limitation namely 30 years from the date when the mortgage was accepted. This contention was accepted and two appeals had been filed, one at the instance of the respective purchasers and another by the mortgagors as co -respondents along with the plaintiff. It is the consecutive decrees obtained by the plaintiff that are in challenge before this Court. The issue whether the mortgagee could obtain a declaration by contending that on the period of expiration of 30 years from the date of execution of mortgage the character of the property as an owner would obtain has been considered by this Court in Ram Kumar and others v. Mohinder and others in RSA No. 2628 of 1992. I have held on the basis of Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kishan v. Shiv Ram, ILR 2008 (1) P&H 719 and by additional reasoning that such a suit is not maintainable and a mortgagee whose mortgage is not redeemed will continue to a mortgagee unless the redemption is lost either by conduct of parties or by a decree of Court. The decree granted by the trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court cannot, therefore, be sustained. The trial Court decree is set aside and both the appeals are allowed with costs throughout.;