JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This is a defendants appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1982 passed by learned District Judge, Faridkot, whereby he accepted the appeal and set-aside the judgment and decree dated 25.5.1981 passed by learned Sub-Judge Ist Class, Moga, and held that the plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by lapse of time as the mortgage was not redeemed and restrained the defendants not to dispossess the plaintiffs. 2. The relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that Gurdit Singh son of Sham Singh was owner of the land as mentioned in Para No. 1 of the plaint. He mortgaged that said land in favour of Roada Singh vide registered mortgage deed dated 11.10.1913 for a sum of Rs. 500/-. The possession of the said land was also delivered to the mortgagee. Gurdit Singh, however, again mortgaged the same land for a sum of Rs. 1100/- with the same mortgagee vide registered mortgage deed dated 16.12.1920. Roada Singh, mortgagee, died and the plaintiffs, being the successors-in-interest, became the morgagees. 3. Gurdit Singh, the original mortgagor, also died and his property was inherited by his widow, Harnam Kaur, who sold the same to Bhan Singh vide sale-deed dated 2.12.1954. Harnam Kaur re-married in the year 1939. The plaintiff-Dial Singh and others filed a suit against Harnam Kaur on the ground that she had no right to sell the property. The said suit was decreed on 12.6.1957 and the defendants were restrained from taking possession from the mortgagees. Therefore, the proprietors of Thula Kharak Singh became the successor of Gurdit Singh, mortgagor. The plaintiffs remained in possession of the suit property. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants had not got the land redeemed, which was mortgaged vide mortgage deed dated 16.12.1920. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration as they had become the owners of the land by the afflux of time as the period of 30 years was elapsed. 4. The defendants contested the suit and admitted that Gurdit Singh was the owner of the property, which was inherited by Harnam Kaur. They also admitted that the suit was filed by the proprietors of Thola Kharak Singh, who became the owners of the property in dispute. It is also admitted that the plaintiffs were the sons of the mortgagee and successor-in-interest. They also admitted that the suit was filed by the proprietors of Thola Kharak Singh, who became the owners of the property in dispute. It is also admitted that the plaintiffs were the sons of the mortgagee and successor-in-interest. The case of the defendants was that defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed a suit for possession by way of redemption. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.1974 for redemption of 1070/2072 share of the land on payment of Rs. 250/-. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree, which was dismissed on 16.1.1978. The defendants also took the objection that the present suit of the plaintiffs was barred by the principle of res judicata and that they were debarred from filing the suit by their act and conduct. On the pleadings of the parties various issues were framed. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence and hearing counsel for the parties, decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the suit land was allotted in consideration for the land mortgaged by Gurdit Singh. Under Issue No. 2, it was held that the plaintiffs had not acquired ownership rights. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the defendants and it was held that the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. Under issue No. 4, it was held that they had complied with the earlier decree for redemption. Issue No. 5 was also decided in favour of the defendants in view of the decision given on Issue No. 3 and ultimately the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decreed dated 25.5.1981. 5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Faridkot, who accepted the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.1982 as stated in Para No. 1 of the judgment. 6. Dis-satisfied with the said judgment and decree, the defendant-appellants have filed the present appeal. 7. It is an admitted case of the parties that the land in dispute was mortgaged by the original owner Gurdit Singh vide mortgage deed dated 11.10.1913 for a consideration of Rs. 500/-. He subsequently executed another mortgage deed dated 16.12.1920 for a sum of Rs. 1100/-. 8. Mr. 7. It is an admitted case of the parties that the land in dispute was mortgaged by the original owner Gurdit Singh vide mortgage deed dated 11.10.1913 for a consideration of Rs. 500/-. He subsequently executed another mortgage deed dated 16.12.1920 for a sum of Rs. 1100/-. 8. Mr. Sanjay Majithia, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the original owner, Gurdit Singh, had not mortgaged the land subsequently but he had created a charge on the property by executing a mortgage deed dated 16.12.1920. He pointed out that defendant Nos. 1 to 6 filed suit for redemption, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 27.3.1974. He also contended that in that suit, the plaintiff-respondents had not raised any objection with regard to the fact that the land in dispute was mortgaged twice by Gurdit Singh. He further contended that once the suit of the plaintiffs- respondents was decreed for redemption, they could not raise the plea that there was a second mortgage of the same property and, therefore, the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. 10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants but find the same to be without any merit. 11. The learned trial Court has minutely examined the abovesaid arguments, as raised by learned counsel for the appellants, and has observed as under :- "It is also mentioned that the mortgage amount would be paid alongwith the earlier mortgage amount. If the mortgagor could redeem the land by bits i.e. he could redeem the first mortgage independent of the second mortgage then the mortgagee is not barred by the principle of res judicata as he was not bound to take the plea of second mortgage in the written statement. However, if he was bound to redeem both the mortgages together and he could not redeem the mortgagee separately then the defendant in that suit was bound to plead the second mortgage and he is barred by the principle of res judicata. However, if he was bound to redeem both the mortgages together and he could not redeem the mortgagee separately then the defendant in that suit was bound to plead the second mortgage and he is barred by the principle of res judicata. In order to appreciate this point Section 61 of the Transfer of Property Act is relevant and it reads as under :- "A mortgagor who has executed two or more mortgages in favour of the same mortgagee shall, in the absence of a contract to contrary, when the plaintiffs money of any two or more of the mortgagees has become due, be entitled to redeem any one such mortgage separately or any two or more of such mortgages together." A perusal of this section goes to show that the mortgagor has the right to redeem any of the mortgages until there is a contract to the contrary. The contract to the contrary would be that he cannot redeem one by one and he should redeem both the mortgages together. That contract is to be enforced by the mortgagee. The mortgagee is at liberty to enforce his right or not. The mortgagor cannot compel him to enforce that limit." 12. It is an admitted position that there were two mortgage deeds i.e. one in the year 1913 and the second in the year 1920. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage deed dated 11.10.1913 but they had not filed the suit for redeeming the land which was mortgaged vide mortgage deed dated 16.12.1920. As per Section 61 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagor who has executed two or more mortgages in favour of the same mortgagee shall, in the absence of a contract to contrary, when the plaintiffs money of any two or more of the mortgagees has become due, be entitled to redeem any one such mortgage separately or any two or more of such mortgages together. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the appellants that if it was a charge on the property and not a separate mortgage deed, then how he had got the land redeemed without depositing the entire mortgage money. It is also relevant to mention here that Bikker Singh earlier filed a suit for redemption of the land which was decreed. It is also relevant to mention here that Bikker Singh earlier filed a suit for redemption of the land which was decreed. The plaintiff-respondents filed a civil appeal No. 244 of 1977 which was decided on 16.1.1978. In the said appeal, the appellants moved an application before the learned District Judge for amendment of written statement. Para No. 3 of the said application is relevant, which reads as under :- "3. That the said Gurdit Singh by a registered Mortgage Deed dated 16.12.1920 again mortgaged the suit land for Rs. 1100/- in favour of the said Roda Singh, in which the sum of Rs. 500/- due under the said earlier Mortgage Deed dated 11.10.1913 was included. A certified copy of the said Mortgage Deed dated 16.12.1920 has been placed by the appellants on the file of the appeal alongwith their application for permission to produce in evidence the said Mortgage Deed dated 16.12.1920 in evidence." 13. In reply to the above said Para 3, the defendants-appellants pleaded as under :- "3. Paragraph No. 3 is incorrect and hence denied. The original mortgage remained in force and there was no subsequent mortgage by Gurdit Singh. There is no question of merger as stated in this paragraph. The appellants are reopening the case after a lapse of 10 years, which Court (could not ?) be permitted at this stage." 14. It is also not disputed that the original owner had not mortgaged the land vide mortgage deed dated 16.12.1920. The successor-in-interest of the original mortgagor had not got the land redeemed within the prescribed period. Therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same. 15. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.