Judgment : ORAL JUDGMENT All these three appeals arise out of the common judgment in the appeals filed by the defendants. Though original suits were different, all the three appeals were admitted by one word order "Admit" and no questions of law were formulated at the time of admission. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned judgment, the following substantial questions of law arise in the present appeals: "1) Whether the suits for redemption of mortgage executed in 1880 were barred by limitation? 2) Whether the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has no application to the mortgage executed in 1880 and as a result, suit for redemption of mortgage itself is not tenable in law? 2.Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgments and the relevant documents. Facts of each of the appeals may be briefly stated. SECOND APPEAL NO.220 OF 1986 3.Property involved in this appeal is City Survey Nos.1147 and 1148 (Old No.3294) situated at Nashik. This property was originally owned by one Bhausa Chimansa, who was owner of the big property. He executed mortgage deed in respect of suit property in favour of the Rangildas Devchand firm on 25.10.1880. As per the mortgage deed, mortgagor could redeem the mortgage on expiry of four years. However, right of redemption was not used by the original owners or his legal heirs On 13.3.1924 defendant no.1 Rangildas Devchand, i.e., the original mortgagee executed assignment deed in respect of suit property in favour of one Deubai Rangu Pansare and put her in possession of the suit property. Property was open land. Deubai made construction of the house on the said property. On 18.8.1945 Deubai executed a registered sale deed cum assignment deed in favour of the defendant no.18 Vishwanath Bhambere, who is appellant in this appeal and put him in possession of the said suit property. Respondent nos.1 to 10, who are the legal heirs of the original owner and mortgagor, filed regular civil suit no.170 of 1968 before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Yeola for redemption of mortgage and possession of the mortgage property against the present appellants and other defendants. According to the appellant, suit is barred by the limitation. Deubai had purchased open site and after construction, constructed premises were sold to the present appellants and, therefore, no mortgage is subsisting. According to the appellant, suit is barred by the limitation. Deubai had purchased open site and after construction, constructed premises were sold to the present appellants and, therefore, no mortgage is subsisting. He also claimed that Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was not applicable and in case, redemption is granted, he is entitled to refund of Rs.3,750/-which was spent by him for repairs and maintenance of the house. The trial Court rejected the contentions of the defendant and passed the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1973. The present appellant preferred regular civil appeal no.42 of 1974 before the District Judge, Nashik. That appeal came to be dismissed on 31.10.1985. Hence, the second appeal. SECOND APPEAL NO.213 OF 1986 4.In this appeal suit property is house no.3291 (Old No.1146). That suit house alongwith some other properties including nos.4151 and 3294 were mortgaged by Bhausa Chimansa in favour of the defendant no.1 Rangildas Devchand firm under a mortgage deed dated 25.10.1980. Defendant nos.2 to 10 and 10A are the partners or the owners of that firm. The defendant no.1 transferred the mortgage rights of house No.3291 in favour of the defendant no.11, of which defendant nos.12 to 15 are the partners or owners, under assignment deed of 29.11.1927. Defendant no.11 firm assigned their mortgage rights in favour of the defendant no.21 in 1929. Defendant no.21 assigned his mortgage rights to defendant nos.19 and 20 through a assignment deed Exhibit 88 dated 9.8.1947. Finally defendant nos.19 and 20 assigned their mortgage rights to the defendant no.22, ie., the present appellant in respect of house No.3291 under assignment deed dated 11.4.1959 Exhibit 89 and thus, defendant no.22, who is the present appellant, is in possession of the said house since 1959. Plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of the original owners by filing regular civil suit no.170 of 1968 claimed redemption of three houses including house no.3291. Suit was decreed and the appellant filed Civil Appeal No.53 of 1974. The appeal was dismissed. Hence, this Second Appeal. SECOND APPEAL NO.214 OF 1986 5.In this appeal, four properties are involved, they are house no.1062, house no.867, house no.937 and house no.933. These properties and some other properties were mortgaged by Bhausa Chimansa in favour of Rangildas Devchand a firm under three mortgage deeds dated 13th September, 1879. The appeal was dismissed. Hence, this Second Appeal. SECOND APPEAL NO.214 OF 1986 5.In this appeal, four properties are involved, they are house no.1062, house no.867, house no.937 and house no.933. These properties and some other properties were mortgaged by Bhausa Chimansa in favour of Rangildas Devchand a firm under three mortgage deeds dated 13th September, 1879. Bhausa Chimansa created further mortgage in favour of Rangildas Devchand a firm in respect of these properties on 25th October, 1990 by securing further amount of Rs.1500/-. Defendant no.1 Rangildas Devchand a firm had assigned their mortgage rights in favour of the defendant no.12 under the assignment deed dated 29th November, 1927. Defendant no.12 firm assigned its rights in property No.937 in favour of the defendant no.1 Abdul Alli Mohmed Kachi. The appellant nos.9 to 13 in the present appeal, who were the defendant Nos.41 to 45 in Regular Civil Suit No.171 of 1968 are the legal heirs of said Abdul. The mortgage rights in house no.867 were assigned in favour of the original defendant no.40 who in turn assigned rights to one Namdeo Bhima Mandwada. Said Namdev assigned his rights on 10th July, 1940 in favour of the original defendant no.39 and the defendant no.39 transferred the said rights in favour of the defendant no.35 on 30th August, 1946. The defendant nos.36 and 37 are sons of the defendant No.35. Defendant nos.35 to 37 are the appellant nos.6,7 and 8 in the present appeal. Rights of the house no.933 were assigned on 20th April, 1932 in favour of the defendant no.38 by defendant no.12 and defendant no.38 transferred the said rights to defendant no.51 under assignment deed dated 13th October, 1942. The appellant no.14 in the present appeal is defendant no.51. Rights in the house no.1062 (Part) were assigned in favour of Bandulal Bhagwandas on 17th August, 1931. Defendant nos.17 to 25 are the heirs of said Bandulal. The appellant nos.1 to 5 are the original defendant nos.21 to 25. 6.About the above referred house no.867, 937, 933 and 1062 alongwith some other properties, the legal heirs of the original owners Bhausa Chimansa filed regular civil suit no.171 of 1968 for redemption of mortgage. Decree passed in their favour was challenged in civil appeal no.57 of 1984 by the present appellants. That appeal was also dismissed. 6.About the above referred house no.867, 937, 933 and 1062 alongwith some other properties, the legal heirs of the original owners Bhausa Chimansa filed regular civil suit no.171 of 1968 for redemption of mortgage. Decree passed in their favour was challenged in civil appeal no.57 of 1984 by the present appellants. That appeal was also dismissed. 7.On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, there appears no dispute about the original ownership and the different transactions beginning with 1880 onwards. Firstly, we have to see what is the effect of enactment of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In fact settled principle of law is that once a mortgage always a mortgage and mortgagor could redeem the property anytime. No written law was there in respect of mortgage of the property prior to 1882. It was only codified in chapter IV of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. No basic change has been made in the law but only some terms, rights and liabilities of the mortgagor and mortgagee or the assignees have been specifically provided. Even though this Act would not have been enacted or would not have been made applicable to the previous transactions, mortgagor would always be entitled to redeem the mortgage by making the payment of mortgage money. 8.As far as House Nos.3294, i.e., City Survey Nos.1147 and 1148, suit property in the second appeal no.220 of 1986 is concerned, this was mortgaged alongwith two other properties by the original owner Bhausa Chimansa in favour of defendant no.1 Rangildas Devchand firm under the registered mortgage deed dated 25.10.1880 Exhibit 84. The terms of the mortgage are specified therein. Mortgage money was to carry interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Mortgagee was entitled to recover the rent and profits of the property. Amount of the rent or other properties was to be adjusted against the interest to be deposited by the mortgagor from time to time. As per the agreement, mortgage could be redeemed on expiry of four years from the date of mortgage deed. As far as Appeal No.213 of 1986 is concerned, it is pertaining to house no.3291, which was also part of same mortgage deed. As per the agreement, mortgage could be redeemed on expiry of four years from the date of mortgage deed. As far as Appeal No.213 of 1986 is concerned, it is pertaining to house no.3291, which was also part of same mortgage deed. It appears that in 1924 defendant no.1, Rangildas Devchand assigned the rights in respect of house No.3294 in favour of Deubai under the registered deed dated 13.3.1924 and then Deubai executed the registered sale deed cum assignment deed dated 18.8.1945 vide Exhibit 87 in favour of the defendant no.18, i.e., the appellant Vishwanath in Second Appeal No.220 of 1986. That mortgage deed clearly shows that the rights as a mortgagee on the land were assigned by Deubai in favour of the appellant while structure thereon was sold by her to the appellant. Thus, the appellant got the property as a mortgagee of the land and as a owner of the structure thereon. He never purchased the land under the deed dated 18.8.1945 Exhibit 87. In respect of appeal no.213 of 1986 also, it appears that under every document of assignment, the rights of the mortgagee were transferred from one person to another and the some right is now held by the appellant, who was original defendant no.22. 9.The learned trial Court rightly pointed out that under the Limitation Act, 1908, period of limitation for the purpose of redemption of mortgage was 60 years, however, that period has been reduced to 30 years now under the Article 61 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As the original date of mortgage was four years, date of limitation for the purpose of redemption would begin to run from 25.10.1884 and this period would expire on 25.10.1944. However, as per the assignment deed dated 13.10.1924 in one appeal and dated 29.11.1927 in another appeal, by executing assignment deeds, the then mortgagees and their assignees acknowledged the existence of mortgage in favour of the original owners and they admitted that they were still mortgagees. Thus, before the expiry of period of limitation, they made acknowledgment of the right of the mortgagors and, therefore, period of limitation would begin to run in 1924 or 1927. As under the Limitation Act 1908, period of limitation was 60 years, this period was to come to an end on 1984. Suits were filed on 14th August, 1968. Thus, before the expiry of period of limitation, they made acknowledgment of the right of the mortgagors and, therefore, period of limitation would begin to run in 1924 or 1927. As under the Limitation Act 1908, period of limitation was 60 years, this period was to come to an end on 1984. Suits were filed on 14th August, 1968. Under Section 30 of the Limitation Act, 1963, it is provided that any suit, for which the period of limitation is shorter than the period prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1908, may be instituted within a period of 7 years next after the commencement of the Act of 1963 or within the period prescribed for such suits by the Limitation Act, 1908, whichever period expires earlier. It may be noted that initially period was five years. Suit to be filed within five years but by the amendment of 1969, this period was enhanced by seven years. Anyhow, as per the provisions of Section 30, at the time of filing the suit in 1968, suit could be filed within five years from the date of implementation of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Act came into force on 1.1.1964. Therefore, suit for redemption of mortgage could be filed on or before 1.1.1969. Present suit was filed during the year 1968, therefore, it was within limitation. 10.In view of the facts in appeal no.214/1986 it is clear that initially Bhausa Chimansa had mortgaged his rights on the properties in favour of Rangildas Devchand a firm on 13th September, 1879 and he created further mortgage in respect of the properties on 25th October, 1900. Thereafter these rights were assigned firstly, in 1927 then in 1931, 1932 and 1942. Undisputedly in every assignment deed only the rights of the mortgage deed were assigned by one person to another and thereby there was acknowledgment of existence of title of the original mortgagor in all these properties. Thereafter these rights were assigned firstly, in 1927 then in 1931, 1932 and 1942. Undisputedly in every assignment deed only the rights of the mortgage deed were assigned by one person to another and thereby there was acknowledgment of existence of title of the original mortgagor in all these properties. 11.It is material to note that under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 where before the expiry of prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or rights, a acknowledgment in respect of any such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment is so signed. Similar provision was made under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Therefore, period of limitation would begin to run as and when there was fresh assignment acknowledging existence of the mortgage. In the present case, first such document dated 13.10.1924 in the form of assignment deed executed by the defendant no.1 Rangildas Devchand firm in favour of the Deubai and then in 1927 therefore, fresh period of limitation would begin in 1924 or 1927. 12.Taking into consideration the legal position and the facts, I find no mistake in the decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. 13.The learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No.220 of 1986 contends that the Courts below have refused to refund the amount to him for the repairs and also they have not stated anything about his right over the structure. As far as refund of amount is considered, there is no fault because open land was mortgaged on which structure was raised by Deubai and from time to time present appellant was required to spend some money for repair and maintenance of that structure. There is no dispute that structure is owned by the present appellant while the land belongs to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will naturally get the decree for redemption of mortgage in respect of land beneath that structure. At the time of execution of the decree, the present appellant being owner of the structure may, if he so desires, remove and take away material of the structure. Plaintiffs will naturally get the decree for redemption of mortgage in respect of land beneath that structure. At the time of execution of the decree, the present appellant being owner of the structure may, if he so desires, remove and take away material of the structure. In fact, this clarification is not at all required because that is the settled position of law. Thus, on this count also the learned counsel could not point out any fault in the decision of the Courts below. 14.For the aforesaid reasons, appeals stand dismissed. 15.As the Appeals are disposed off, Civil Application Nos.1106 of 1986, and Civil Application No.555 of 1989 do not survive and stand disposed off accordingly.