Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of four appeals bearing R.S.A. Nos. 2868, 2869, 2870 and 2874 of 2013 as common question of law is involved in all of them. The plaintiffs filed suit for declaration that by afflux of time, they have become owners of the land which is in their possession as mortgagees. Both the Courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of "Ram Kishan and others v. Sheo Ram and others", : (2008 -1) 149 P.L.R. 1 (F.B.), in which it has been held that there is no limitation to redeem the land in case of usufructuary mortgage.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has argued that the Full Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court has taken a contrary view in the case of "Bhandaru Ram (Deceased) through his L.R. Rattan Lal v. Sukh Ram, : 2 A.I.R. 2012 (H.P.) 1, and also the view expressed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan and others (supra), is under challenge before the Supreme Court, therefore, these appeal may be adjourned sine die to await the decision of the Supreme Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the mortgagers has submitted that the plaintiffs have lost in both the Courts below on the basis of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan and others (Supra) which is still holding the field. He has relied upon an order of this Court rendered in R.S.A. No. 1764 of 2011 titled as Saroj Bala and others v. Yaad Ram and others, decided on 21.4.2011, by which a coordinate Bench of this Court, while relying upon Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan and others (Supra) has dismissed the appeal of the mortgagee. Thus, following the dictum in the case of Ram Kishan and others (Supra), present appeals are also dismissed.;