Judgment A. S. BAGGA, J. ( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18-8-1994 passed by learned 4th Addl. District Judge, ahmednagar in Regular Civil Appeal No. 58 of 1985 which arose from the judgment and decree dated 7-1-1985 passed by learned Civil Judge, J. D. in regular Civil Suit No. 57 of 1983. ( 2 ) A suit was brought by respondent, original plaintiff against the present appellants, original defendants, for redemption of mortgage. It was the case of plaintiff in the suit that the plaintiff was in need of certain amount for payment of tagai and Societys dues. He, therefore, approached father of defendant No. 2 namely; Radhakishan Bapuji (deceased) for Rs. 400/ -. The document came to be executed and ancestral house of the plaintiff was sold conditionally for 10 years and possession of it was given to Radhakishan. In the document it was written that the plaintiff will have right of purchase of property on payment of the amount and if the amount was not paid within stipulated period, the document would be treated as permanent sale deed and thereafter, the transferee would enjoy the property forever. The document was titled as conditional sale of house bearing No. 774 (1) for Rs. 400/- dated 24-3-1961. ( 3 ) A suit was brought by the plaintiff in 1983. The defendants, legal representatives of deceased Radhakrishna, in the written statement in the trial court contended that document was out and out sale. It was further contended that the plaintiff had undertaken to repay the amount within specified time and to get the property released. It was agreed that if the amount was not so paid, the deed would be treated as out and out sale. It was stated by them that deceased radhakrishna requested the plaintiff to get deed released but it was not done. Finally, it was stated that the defendants were in possession of the property for more than 12 years, and therefore, they have become owners by adverse possession. Learned trial Judge, after having framed necessary issues in the matter and after having recorded the evidence as was laid between the parties, recorded a finding which included that the document dated 24-3-1961 executed between the parties i. e. the plaintiff and deceased Radhakrishna was mortgaged by conditional sale. Learned trial Judge, however, held that since the amount of rs. Learned trial Judge, after having framed necessary issues in the matter and after having recorded the evidence as was laid between the parties, recorded a finding which included that the document dated 24-3-1961 executed between the parties i. e. the plaintiff and deceased Radhakrishna was mortgaged by conditional sale. Learned trial Judge, however, held that since the amount of rs. 400/- was not paid within stipulated time, the mortgagee by conditional sale become absolute owner and that the plaintiff had no right after the expiry of stipulated time mentioned in the deed. The deed, according to the trial Judge, has become out and out sale. Learned trial Judge has also recorded a finding that defendants had perfected their title by remaining in possession for more than 12 years. ( 4 ) THE matter was taken up in appeal by original plaintiff. The appeal was allowed. The decree passed by trial Judge was set aside and 1st appellate Court decreed the suit. It is held by learned 1st appellate Court as held by trial Court that the deed was mortgaged by conditional sale holding that once it is mortgaged, the mortgagor had right of redemption any time before the expiry of 30 years as provided under Article 61 of the Limitation Act. Observing that there was no suit filed by the defendants for foreclosure, the plaintiff had a right and since the amount of Rs. 400/- had already been deposited by the plaintiff in the court, the 1st appellate Court decreed the suit. ( 5 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondent. On perusal of document which is admittedly executed between Radhakrishna and plaintiff dated 24th March, 1961, it would be seen that there is condition that the plaintiff had a right to repurchase the property within a period of 10 years. It is stated in the document that if the amount is not repaid during this period of 10 years, the document shall be treated as sale deed and the mortgagee radhakrishna, who is given possession of the property, shall enjoy it as owner. This document has been construed by mortgagee by the conditional sale by both the Courts below. Since the finding recorded by both the Courts below is concurrent and also on examination is found to be correct, it will now have to be seen whether the plaintiff had right of redemption. This document has been construed by mortgagee by the conditional sale by both the Courts below. Since the finding recorded by both the Courts below is concurrent and also on examination is found to be correct, it will now have to be seen whether the plaintiff had right of redemption. ( 6 ) FIRST Appellate Court, on the principle of once a mortgagee always a mortgagee, has held that the mortgagor plaintiff had a right of redemption even after expiry of 10 years. The mortgagee, after the expiry of 10 years, would not become owner of the property automatically. It is permissible for mortgagor to file a suit for redemption even after the expiry of stipulated period of 10 years. Admittedly, no suit had been brought by Radhakrishna or his legal representatives - present original defendants. The limitation prescribed in this regard is 30 years under Article 61 of the Indian Limitation Act. Learned 1st appellate Court is, therefore, right in holding that the plaintiff had right for redemption and since the suit was brought for redemption within limitation, it was decreed. Admittedly, no suit had been brought by defendants for foreclosure. On perusal of record and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the judgments of both the Courts below, this Court finds no merit in this appeal. Decree passed by learned 1st Appellate Court deserves to be upheld and confirmed. 6a. Second appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.