SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- V.N. Khare and S.N. Variava, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 4417 of 1991. D/d. 1.11.2000.

Tarsem Lal - Appellants

Versus

Mangat Ram - Respondent

A. Limitation - Contention that since plaintiff-respondent purchased mortgagee's right on 25.11.69 a fresh period of limitation would run from that date as it was an acknowledgment of the mortgage - Not tenable - Mere purchase of mortgagee's right would not give fresh period of limitation.

[Para 1]

B. Constitution of India, Article 136 - Finding of fact - All the three Courts recorded concurrent finding of fact that respondent purchased mortgagee right in respect of the house in his individual capacity and, therefore, it was not a co-parcenary right - Said finding is a finding of fact - Cannot be interfered by Supreme Court in appeal.

[Para 1]

ORDER

V.N. Khare, J. - In the year 1944, one Chhajju Ram mortgaged the house and, subsequently, also a shop in favour of S/S Bhiku Ram and Charna Dass s/o Bhiku Ram. On 25th November, 1969 the plaintiff-respondent purchased the mortgagee right from Bhiku Ram and his son. In February, 1980 the plaintiff-respondent Mangat Ram brought a suit for declaration that on expiry of period of limitation from the date of mortgage, he has become owner of the property by prescription, being the purchaser of the mortgagee's right. The defendant-appellants filed a counter claim to the effect that they are ready to redeem the mortgage. The Trial Court partly decreed the suit to the extent of a house. However, the Trial Court allowed the counter claim partly to the extent of redemption of shop. Two sets of appeals were filed, one by the plaintiff-respondent and another by the defendant-appellants. The first Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals and the decree was also affirmed by the High Court. It is against the said judgment, the defendant-appellants have filed this appeal. All the three Courts recorded a concurrent finding of fact that respondent Mangat Ram purchased the mortgagee right in respect of the house in his individual capacity and, therefore, it was not a co-parcenary right. The said finding is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with by this Court in appeal. Learned Counsel then argued that since the plaintiff-respondent purchased the mortgagee's rights on 25th November, 1969 a fresh period of limitation would run from that date as it was an acknowledgement of the mortgage. This argument is not tenable at all. Under law, mere purchase of mortgagee right would not give fresh period of limitation.

2. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal and the same in dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.