JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. THERE are khata nos. 7,22,23,38 and 173 in dispute between the parties. Shorn of unnecessary details the petitioner had claimed 1/2 share in Khata Nos. 22, 23 and 173. The petitioner's name was not recorded over the aforesaid Khatas. His name was recorded over Khata No. 38. Some of the contesting opposite parties had filed an objection for expunction of the name of the petitioner over Khata no. 38. The consolidation officer partly accepted the claim of the petitioner to the extent of 1/4th share in some of the disputed plots. The petitioner's appeal failed before the appellate authority as is evident from the judgment dated 14-10-1969. The petitioner also failed before the revisional authority. Aggrieved by the judgments of the consolidation authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. THIS writ petition was heard and allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court through his judgment dated 1-4-1980 but the order has been recalled due to the circumstance that the counsel for the opposite party was not heard. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the consolidation authorities have patently erred in negativing the claim of the petitioner in the plots which were subject matter of a mortgage to Bale Din and Bhulai and over which :the contesting opposite parties Jagar Nath Pal (now represented by his heirs) and father of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 named Chandra Bhushan Pal had got possession in pursuance of a decree in suit no. 14 of 1948. It is note-worthy that the decree in redemption suit was in favour of the aforesaid Jagarnath Pal, Chandra Bhushan Pal and father of tha petitioner, namely Gopal Prasad Pal and father of opposite party no. 5, namely Indra Mani Pal. The learned counsel for the petitioner also suggested that he adopted the grounds and discussions due to which his writ petition was allowed by a learned Judge of this Court on 1-4-1980. 3. THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite party submitted in reply that the judgment dated 1-4-1980 has been set aside at the instance of the opposite party, hence the same should not be taken note of while deciding the present writ petition. 3. THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite party submitted in reply that the judgment dated 1-4-1980 has been set aside at the instance of the opposite party, hence the same should not be taken note of while deciding the present writ petition. He also submitted that the petitioner has no claim in the plots which were subject matter of mortgage to Bale Din and Bhulai because the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting opposite parties had redeemed the mortgage and the petitioners and his predecessor-in-interest did not contribute the requisite share in the money paid by the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting opposite parties, hence the petitioner has no claim in the plots which were subject matter of the mortgage. In this connection it has been suggested that as the mortgage was redeemed by some of the mortgagors and they became charge-holder of the share of the other mortgagors, who failed to file redemption suit and also failed to recover possession over their share by contributing their share within time provided by law, hence the petitioner's claim was rightly negatived by the consolidation authorities even in the plots which were subject matter of the mortgage. It has also been suggested that the plots which stood in the name of Yadunath Kunwari as ex-prdprietory tenancy, the petitioner cannot claim any share in the ex-proprietory tenancy of Yadunath Kunwari as he would not be heir entitled to her ex-proprietory tenancy. 4. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the judgments of the consolidation authorities as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1-4-1980. It is noteworthy that the mortgage deed under consideration in the present case is dated 17-3-1920. The Redemption Suit No. 14/48 filed by Jagarnath Pal and Chandra Bhushan Pal was decreed in fovour of the plaintiffs as well as Gopal Prasad Pal, father of the present petitioner and Indra Mani Pal, father of the opposite party no. 5, in the present writ petition. At this stage, it would be better to quote the following pedigree :-(Pedigree omitted-Ed.) In short, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the petitioner being an heir of a co-mortgagor is entitled to a share in the plots, subject matter of the mortgage to Bale Din and Bhulai and redeemed by Jagarnath Pal and Chandra Bhushan Pal. It has been emphasized that the possession of Jagarnath Pal and Chandra Bhushan Pal over the share of the petitioner would be permissive in nature and the petitioner would be entitled to a share in the plots mortgaged subject to contribution of his share in the money paid by the co-mortgagors who redeemed the mortgage and got possession in the year 1948. It has been contended that on the passing of the Act No. I of 1951, the possession of the mortgagee would be only that of a licensee and the consolidation authorities have patently erred in negativing the claim of the petitioner in the plots which were subject matter of the mortgage in favour of Bale Din and Bhulai. 5. THE learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted that in law Jagarnath Pal and Chandra Bhushan Pal would not be mortgagee but only a charge-holder and the petitioner as well as his predecessor failed to contribute the requisite money within time, hence the claim of the petitioner has been rightly negatived by the consolidation authorities. 6. IN this connection the learned counsel for the opposite parties has invited my attention to the ruling Jai Kishan Joshi v. Buddhanand Joshi, AIR 1916 All. 134 wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that a co-mortgagor on redeeming the mortgage- property becomes only a charge-holder qua the share of the other co-mortgagors and not a mortgagee. The learned counsel for the opposite party has invited my attention to the ruling Ganeshi Lal v. Jyoti Prasad, AIR 1953 SC 1 which has been referred to in Lakshmi Pilla Subhadra Amma v. Easwara Pillai Velayudhan Pillai, AIR 1977 Kerala 148 and a Full Bench of that Court has observed in parapraph 13 of their judgment as below :- "........The position disclosed is that of a redeeming co-mortgagor faced with a suit filed by a non-redeeming co-mortgagor. AIR 1953 SC 1 directly considered and propounded the principle for decision in such cases. It was pointed out that a redeeming co-mortgagor was only a surety for the other co-mortgagors and his right was only one for reimbursement or contribution. That the position is precisely the same even after the enactment of the T. P. Act was expressly ruled in Mamundi Kaduvetti v. Somasundara Chetti, AIR 1959 Mad. 555 .........". 7. It was pointed out that a redeeming co-mortgagor was only a surety for the other co-mortgagors and his right was only one for reimbursement or contribution. That the position is precisely the same even after the enactment of the T. P. Act was expressly ruled in Mamundi Kaduvetti v. Somasundara Chetti, AIR 1959 Mad. 555 .........". 7. HE also placed reliance upon the ruling Valliama Chambaka Pillai v. Sivathanu Pillai, AIR 1979 SC 1937 and has contended that when a co-mortgagor redeems the mortgaged property, the right of non-redeeming co-mortgagor is to pay his share of the liability and get possession of his property from the redeeming co-mortgagor so long as the latter's right of contribution subsists. 8. IN short, the main submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party in the present case is that the redeeming co-mortgagor was not a mortgagee qua the share of other co-mortgagors after having redeemed the mortgage property. The redeeming co-mortgagor is a charge-holder of the share of the property of non-redeeming co-mortgagor and that non-redeeming co-mortgagor can claim his share only within 12 years of the date of redemption by the redeeming co-mortgagor. IN this connection he has placed reliance upon Article 132 of the old Limitation Act of 1908 and Article 62 of the New Limitation Act of 1963 which reads as below :- " 62. To enforce payment Twelve years When the money sued of money secured by for becomes due. a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property It is true that the redeeming co-mortgagor is not strictly mortgagee qua the share of non-redeeming co-mortgagor but it is not correct to contend that in every case non-redeeming co-mortgagor can get possession over other share within 12 years from the date of redemption. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party and reported in AIR 1916 Allahabad 201 (mentioned supra) may be correct on the facts mentioned therein but it cannot be held as a matter of law that in every case non-co-redeeming mortgagor can seek possession over his share only within 12 years from the date of the redemption by the redeeming co-mortgagor. Even the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party hint that non-co-redeeming mortgagor can get possession over his share of the mortgage property from the redeeming co-mortgagor within 60 years from the date of the mortgage. Even the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party hint that non-co-redeeming mortgagor can get possession over his share of the mortgage property from the redeeming co-mortgagor within 60 years from the date of the mortgage. In this connection it would be proper to mention the case law of this Court Ashfaq Ahmad v. Wazir Ali, ILR 11 All. 423 wherein it has been held that Article 148 of the Limitation Act No. 15 of 1877 would be applicable to the suit filed by non-redeeming co-mortgagor against the redeeming co-mortgagor in possession over their share in the mortgaged property in Ashfaq Ahmad v. Wazir Ali, ILR 14 All. page 1 a Full Bench of this Court has also indicated that Article 148 of Act no. 15 of 1877 would be attracted to a suit filed by a non-redeeming co-mortgagor against the redeeming co-mortgagor. In Khiali Ram v. Talk Ram, AIR 1916 All. 201 a Division Bench of this Court has held that Article 148 Schedule I Limitation Act 1908 would govern the suit filed by non-redeeming co-mortgagor for possession over his share against the redeeming co-mortgagor. In Surat Singh y. Umrao Singh, AIR 1922 All. 410 a Division Bench of this Court has held that where one of several co-mortgagors redeems a mortgage the other co-mortgagors can bring a suit for redemption against the redeeming mortgagor within 60 years from the date of the original mortgage. In Mange y. Des Raj, AIR 1967 Punjab 270 a Division Bench of that Court has held as below per Head Note ;- " A non-redeeming co-mortgagor can recover his share after contribution to the redeeming co-mortgagor in possession, either within sixty years from the date of original mortgage under Art. 148 or within twelve years from the date of redemption by the redeeming co-mortgagor under Art. 132." 9. IN AIR 1979 SC 1937 at page 1943 (Paragraph 34) it has been held as below :- " Since subrogation of the redeeming co-mortgagor would give him the right under the original mortgage to hold the non-redeeming co-mortgagor's property as security to get himself reimbursed for the amount paid by him in excess of his share of the liability, it follows that a suit for possession of hi; share or portion of the property by a non-redeeming co-mortgagor on payment of the proportionate amount of the mortgage debt may be filed either within the limitation prescribed for a suit for redemption of the original mortgage or within the period prescribed for a suit for contribution by the redeeming co-mortgagor against the other co-mortgagor." 10. IN Mange y. Des Raj, 1967 Punjab 270 a Division Bench of that Court vide paragraph 8 has held as below :- " The learned majority Judges agreed that since under Article 132 of the Limitation Act the redeeming co-mortgagor was given a period of limitation of 12 years for a suit to recover his proportionate share from any co-mortgagor, the same period of 12 years would be the period in which a non-redeeming co-mortgagor could institute a suit to force the redeeming co-mortgagor to accept his share of the mortgage money and give him his share in the mortgaged property, but this would be subject to the period of limitation of 60 years-for redeeming a mortgage contained in Art. 148." In the present case the mortgage under consideration is dated 17-3-1920. The mortgage was no doubt redeemed by a co-mortgagor on 18-12-1948 but the right of the present petitioner did not extinguish in the property mortgaged, hence I think that the consolidation authorities have patently erred in negativing the claim of the petitioner in the plots which were the subject matter of the mortgage to Bale Din and Bhulai. I am not prepared to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the petitioner's claim had extinguished because he or his predecessor-in-interest did not contribute the requisite share in the money paid by the redeeming co-mortgagors and failed to bring a suit for possession within 12 years of the date of redemption. I am not prepared to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the petitioner's claim had extinguished because he or his predecessor-in-interest did not contribute the requisite share in the money paid by the redeeming co-mortgagors and failed to bring a suit for possession within 12 years of the date of redemption. To my mind the impugned judgment of the revisional authority suffers from patent error of law in negativing the claim of the petitioner in the plots which were subject matter of the mortgage dated 17-3-1920. 11. IT is note-wrothy that in some of the mortgaged plots tenancy right accrued to different persons including Yadunath Kunwari mentioned in the above pedigree. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 1-4-1980 accepted the claim of the petitioner even with regard to ex-proprietory tenancy standing in the name of Yadunath Kunwari. The learned Single Judge placed reliance upon the ruling reported in AIR 1974 Allahabad 121. Since the aforesaid judgment has been recalled by the learned Single Judge it is proper to mention that the petitioner's claim regarding a share in ex-proprietary tenancy held by Yadunath Kunwari has not been demonstrated to me and the learned counsel had only relied upon the discussions in the judgment of the learned Single Judge that the ruling relied upon by the learned Single Judge and the facts involved in the present case are quite different. In the reported ruling the mortgage was to a co-proprietor whereas in the present case the mortgage is to a stranger and it is not very clear how Yadunath Kunwari got ex-proprietary tenancy with regard to some of the plots which were subject matter of the mortgage. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not advanced any argument before me qua Yadunath Kunwari's ex-proprietary tenancy involved in the present writ petition and I have a feeling that the ruling reported in AIR 1974 Allahabad 121 is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I think that the petitioner has no share in the plots held by Yadunath Kunwari as ex-proprietary tenancy. 12. 12. IN the result, the writ petition succeeds in part and the impugned judgment of the revisionl authority dated 29-1-1975 is hereby quashed and the revisional authority is directed to re-examine the claim of the petitioner regarding the plots, subject matter of the mortgage dated 17-3-1920 excluding the plots in which Yadunath Kunwari or any other person has succeeded in establishing tenancy right. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.