Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The appellants filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of suit land and entries showing them as mortgagees in the revenue record were wrong. 2. Case of the plaintiffs is that defendants mortgaged the suit land for Rs. 40/- to which effect a mutation was entered in the revenue record and plaintiffs were put in possession. The defendants did not redeem the suit land and period of redemption came to an end. 3. The suit was contested on the plea that plaintiffs having transferred their rights as mortgagees in favour of Dara Singh, Joginder Singh and Manohar Singh, had no locus standi and that they were not entitled to declaration as sought. 4. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit. It was held that since suit land was mortgaged in the year 1888 and 30 years from the date of mortgage had come to an end, the plaintiffs had become the owners. 5. On appeal, decree of the trial court was reversed and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. It was held that the plaintiffs had sold half of the land to Dara Singh, Joginder Singh and Manohar Singh and to that extent, plaintiffs had no right. It was further held that right of redemption had not come to an end. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that right of the mortgagor came to an end on expiry of period of 30 years after the date of mortgage and the view taken by the lower appellate court is not correct. 7. I am unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the appellants. In case of agricultural land, by virtue of provisions of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, a mortgagor cannot recover double the amount of the principal amount and has to render account of the produce when possession is given to mortgagee. In absence of rendering of any accounts, the mortgagee cannot be treated to have been paid and possession of such a mortgagee remains permissive possession. After considering several decisions of the Apex Court in this regard, it was held in Samadh Baba Narain Dass Ba-Inaman Swami Ram Tirath v. Surta and Ors., A.I.R. 2002 P&H 108 that declaration of mortgagee having become owner could not be granted in such a situation. After considering several decisions of the Apex Court in this regard, it was held in Samadh Baba Narain Dass Ba-Inaman Swami Ram Tirath v. Surta and Ors., A.I.R. 2002 P&H 108 that declaration of mortgagee having become owner could not be granted in such a situation. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.