K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE point raised in the second appeal is whether there is any period of redemption for redeeming the usufructuary mortgage. There does exist a period of 30 years but the issue always is what is the starting period of such limitation. The starting point is not the date of mortgage but it is only the date of demand for redemption and refusal and this is how it has been considered by a Full Bench of our court in Ramkishan and others v. Sheo Ram and others, (2008 -1) 149 PLR 1 and also referred to in a subsequent judgment in Ram Kumar and others v. Mo -hinder and others., (2012 -1) 165 PLR 281. The point which is sought to be urged before me is that the Himachal Pradesh High Court's Full Bench has considered the Full Bench of our court and has held that there is a period of limitation which will commence from the date of the mortgage. It will be pure impertinence for any party or even a Judge of this court to prefer a Full Bench ruling of yet another High Court when there is a direct ruling from this court itself. (see: Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, : AIR 1968 (SC) 372). Since the point is fully covered through the decision of this court, I will not allow for a citation from Himachal Pradesh High Court to prevail.
(2.) THE counsel argues that the defendant -mortgagor was entitled to only a half share and a partial redemption of mortgage is impermissible. The court below had dealt with it by observing that the alleged plea of mortgagor's right only to a half share was not brought out as a ground but in any event, the redemption is in respect of whole of the property and not partial redemption. A mortgagor, who is entitled to any fractional share, is entitled to redeem the whole of the property leaving it to the other sharers to contribute to the amount which is paid for redemption and secured to their share. The mortgagor has adopted the said course of redeeming the whole of the property only. His own entitlement to a half share is irrelevant for a mortgagee cannot hold back possession or create any clog on redemption. No substantial question of law arises in this case and the points raised have all been fully answered through the decisions which are fairly well established. The second appeal is dismissed.;