In 1893, oral mortgage of land was executed for Rs. 53/-. On 11.01.1960, mortgagees sold their mortgage rights to A vide registered sale deed. In 1968, B filed suit for possession by way of redemption against A, who raised preliminary objection that suit was time-barred as period of limitation of redemption started from 1893 and period of 60 years is to be counted from 1893. Discuss merits of respective contentions.

The mortgagee’s objection is weak. A suit for redemption is governed by Article 148, and where the mortgage is oral and no later fixed date for redemption is shown, limitation runs from the date of the mortgage itself, but the full period is sixty years, not twelve or anything shorter.

Governing rule

Article 148 of the old Limitation Act, which corresponds to the present law on redemption suits, allowed sixty years for a suit against a mortgagee to redeem or recover possession of immovable property mortgaged. The crucial question is when the right to redeem accrued. If the mortgage deed fixes no later date or term, the right ordinarily accrues from the date of the mortgage; if a term is fixed, it accrues on expiry of that term.

A later acknowledgment by the mortgagee does not revive a right already barred. Section 18 helps only if the acknowledgment is made before limitation expires.

Applying the facts

Here, the oral mortgage was created in 1893 for Rs. 53. The mortgagees later sold their mortgage rights to A in 1960 by a registered sale deed. That sale deed may evidence the subsistence of the mortgage, but it does not create a fresh starting point for limitation in favour of the mortgagor.

If sixty years are counted from 1893, the right to redeem expired in 1953. B’s suit filed in 1968 is therefore beyond time. The preliminary objection that limitation began in 1893 is correct on these facts.

Case law

The Supreme Court in Sampuran Singh v. Niranjan Kaur dealt with an almost identical situation. There, an oral mortgage of 1893 was followed by a 1960 registered transfer of mortgage rights, yet the Court held that the suit for redemption filed long afterward was barred because the sixty-year period ran from the date of the mortgage itself.drishtijudiciary+1

The Court also made it clear that a later sale of mortgage rights does not postpone the running of time for redemption. The mortgagor’s right to redeem arises from the mortgage transaction, and unless some legally effective fresh starting point exists, the original date controls.

Illustration

If land is mortgaged orally in 1893 and nothing in the mortgage postpones redemption to a later fixed date, the mortgagor can sue for redemption within sixty years from 1893. A mortgagee’s later assignment in 1960 cannot give the mortgagor a new sixty-year period.

Conclusion

The mortgagee’s contention succeeds. The suit for redemption filed in 1968 is barred because limitation began in 1893 and expired in 1953. The 1960 sale of mortgage rights did not restart limitation or extend the mortgagor’s time to sue.