JUDGMENT S S Sidhu, IAS —Shri Jhalli Ram his filed this revision petition under section 1! of the Himachal Pradesh Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order dated 19-9-1991, passed in case No. 3/90 by the Commissioner, Mandi Division 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that one Shri Tuarsu s/o Shri Chamaru resident of village Dharmot, Phati and Kothi Sarai, Tehsil and District Kullu, had mortgaged his land with the present petitioner for the consideration of Rs 1100 and mutation No. 139 had also been attested in token of the mortgage on 13-2-195?- The mortgage was with possession The original mortgager Shri Tuarsu died and his estate including the land, he had mortgaged, devolved upon his sons namely Shri Rewto, Kewlu and Dile Ram Shri Dile Ram also died and his estate also devolved upon S/Shri Rewtu and Kewlu, his brothers and Smt. Shoari and Smt Tulsi, his sisters in equal shares. As such S/Shri Rewtu, Kewlu end Smt. Shoari and Smt Tulsi stopped into the shoes of the original mortgager, Shri Tuarsu. Shri Kewlu also died and his estate was inherited by Shri Gopi Chand as his legal representative. Later on above S/Shri Rewtu, Kewlu, Smt Shoari and Tulsi sold the entire land to S/Shri Jhabe Ram and Ram Singh by various registered sale deeds, the details of which have been given in the order, dated 6-12-1989 of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Kullu in case No. 4-AC/1989. In this way S/Shri Jhabe Ram and Ram Singh stepped into the shoes of the original mortgager, Shri Tuarsu It was on 3-2-1982 that S/Shri Jhabe Ram and Ram Singh filed an application under section 4 of the Act for restitution of possession of the land mortgaged before the Sub Divisional Collector, Kullu. The learned Sub Divisional Collector, Kullu, after examining and hearing the case, accepted the application and passed order dated 6-12-1989 whereby he accepted the application and restored the land measuring 3-340 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. The learned Sub Divisional Collector, Kullu, after examining and hearing the case, accepted the application and passed order dated 6-12-1989 whereby he accepted the application and restored the land measuring 3-340 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 3128, 3l3l, 3135 and 3142 of Khata/Khatauni No. 305/664 of Phati Banogi, Kothi Sarai, Tebsil and District Kullu as recorded in the Jamabandi for the year ) 963-64 without paying the principal or nDortgage money to the mortgagee and also ordered that mutation be attest d in favour of S/Shri Jhabe Ram and Ram Singh after delivering the possession to them Feeling aggrieved by this order, Shri Jhalli Ram filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Mandi Division, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 19-9-1991. Now he has come in revision before us. 3. We have heard the arguments advanced by Shri Onkar Jairath, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Harish Khanna, Advocate, learned Counsel for the respondents. The main ground taken by the petitioner was that the lower appellate court has focussed all attention on the point of limitation and that too erroneously The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the limitation should run from the delivery of the possession He laid emphasis that the possession of the mortgaged land was delivered on 12-6-1950 and mutation No 139 was attested on 13-2-1953. However, we do not agree with this plea of the learned Counsel for the petitioner The perusal of record reveals that Shri Jhalli Ram, petitioner paid Rs 195 to Shri Tuarsu on 12-6 1950 as is evident from the receipt. Shri Tuarsu also agreed to take the balance amount of Rs 905 at the time of attestation of mutation This is a fact that the mutation No. 139 was attested on 13-2-1953. The transaction becomes complete when the entire money was paid and mutation attested No doubt, Shri Tuarsu agreed to band over the possession when he received Rs 195 on 12-6-1950 but there is no evidence that possession was actually handed over. As such, limitation will run from the date when the mutation was attested i e 13-2-1953. The parties appeared to have agreed for attesting the mutation when the entire amount had been paid. We find no reason to differ with the findings of the learned Com missioner, Mandi Division, so far as his calculation on the point of limitation is concerned. The parties appeared to have agreed for attesting the mutation when the entire amount had been paid. We find no reason to differ with the findings of the learned Com missioner, Mandi Division, so far as his calculation on the point of limitation is concerned. The authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are in respect of the Transfer of Property Act and not relevant to the point of limitation. The revision petition filed by the petitioner Jhalli Ram does not have any force and the same is dismissed accordingly/ Order be communicated.