JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J. - The plaintiffs have filed this appeal to challenge the judgment and decree dated 8.9.1983 passed by the District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration to the effect that they had become owners in possession of the suit land by prescription has been dismissed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1981 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Kaithal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence adduced on record. 3. The following substantial questions of law arise for determination by this Court :- 1. Whether there is any limitation for redeeming the usufructuary mortgage, i.e., mortgage with possession ? 2. Whether in the case of indivisible property, if one of the plaintiffs dies during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives have not been brought on record, the suit as a whole or in part to the extent of the share of the deceased plaintiffs would abate ? 4. In brief, the facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of three-fourth share on the ground that the mortgage had not been got redeemed by the defendants within the prescribed period of 30 years. According to them, after the death of Devtia, the original mortgagor, who died issueless the mortgagor rights were purchased by one Boga, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. After his death the defendants stepped into his shoes. According to them, the land could be got redeemed only upto 31.12.1970, and the defendants had failed to get the mortgage redeemed by the prescribed date of limitation. Both the courts below held that the plaintiffs had become owners by prescription as the suit land had not been got redeemed within the prescribed period of limitation. However, the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that during the pendency of the suit Siri Ram, one of the plaintiffs, had died, and his legal representatives had not been brought on record within the prescribed period of limitation. On this basis, it was held that as the suit land was indivisible, the suit could not abate only qua the share of Siri Ram deceased, rather the suit as a whole would abate. On this basis, it was held that as the suit land was indivisible, the suit could not abate only qua the share of Siri Ram deceased, rather the suit as a whole would abate. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed. Now the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal on impugn the judgment and decree dated 8.9.1983 passed by the lower appellate Court. 5. Indisputably, the mortgage in the present case was a usufructuary mortgage. The plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land as mortgagee. No limitation was prescribed for getting the mortgage redeemed. In usufructuary mortgages, the mortgagees are given possession of the mortgaged land and they eat the fruits thereof in lieu of interest. As there was no stipulation in the mortgage deed as to when the mortgaged property was to be redeemed, therefore, there was no limitation for redemption of usufructuary mortgage by the mortgagors. The usufructuary mortgagor does not lose his title to the property or right to redemption by lapse of time. In this view of mine, I find support from the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Panchanan Sharma v. Basudeo Prasad Jaganani and others, 1995 Haryana Rent Reporter 575. Consequently, the first question is answered accordingly. 6. So far as the answer to the second question is concerned, there is no dispute to the fact that Siri Ram plaintiff had died during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court. His legal representatives were not brought on record by the plaintiffs. The suit property was joint of all the plaintiffs. On the death of Siri Ram plaintiff, it was essential for the plaintiffs to bring his legal representatives on record within the prescribed period of limitation. But they had failed to do so. His legal representatives were brought on record only when the case was remanded to the trial Court by the lower appellate Court. Then it was too late in the day as the period of limitation had expired long ago. In such a situation, the suit shall abate as a whole and not only qua the share of Siri Ram deceased. His legal representatives were brought on record only when the case was remanded to the trial Court by the lower appellate Court. Then it was too late in the day as the period of limitation had expired long ago. In such a situation, the suit shall abate as a whole and not only qua the share of Siri Ram deceased. In the case reported as Sajjan Singh v. Ganga Ram and others, AIR 1976 Punjab & Haryana 393, it was held by this Court that where there was a joint and indivisible decree in favour of plaintiffs-respondents and one of the respondents died during the pendency of appeal by judgment-debtors and the application filed for bringing his legal representatives on record was time-barred, the entire appeal abated. It was further held that in the absence of the legal representatives of deceased respondent, the appellate Court could not determine anything between the appellant and those legal representatives such as may affect latters right and the decree passed jointly in favour of the plaintiffs, must be treated as indivisible notwithstanding the fact that the share of the deceased respondent therein may be ascertained with reference to the pleadings of the parties. The same is the situation in the present case. The suit land herein is a joint property of the plaintiffs though in the pleadings it was stated by them that specific share of each plaintiff was demarcated. However, the Court could not ascertain their individual shares. In the case reported as State of Punjab v. Nathu, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 89, it was held by the Honble Apex Court that where "subject-matter for which compensation had been awarded was one and the same land and the assessment of compensation as far as L was concerned having become final, there could not be different assessments of compensation for the same parcel of land. The mere record of specific share of L and N in the revenue records was no guarantee of their correctness and the appellate Court would have to determine the share of N & that of L in the land in the absence of Ls legal representatives which was not admissible in law." It was held by their Lordships that in such a situation the appeal as a whole will abate and not in part. The dictum of Honble the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In this view of the matter, the second question is also answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.