JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral).:- This regular second appeal, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2010, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants for declaration and permanent injunction, has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs claimed ownership over the disputed land on the plea, that the mortgage having not been redeemed within a period of 30 years, has matured into the ownership of the plaintiff/appellants. The consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought against their dispossession in pursuance to the decree obtained by respondents against defendant No.1, the mortgagor of the property. 3. In view of the Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Ram Kishan and others Vs. Sheo Ram and others, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 334, the suit for declaration claiming ownership was not competent, as there is no limitation prescribed for redemption of usufructuary mortgage. As regards the relief of injunction is concerned, the appellants had a remedy to file objection against the execution, as a separate suit was not competent as third party objections were to be filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants concedes that the objections have been filed and the execution is contested, therefore, the claimed relief of injunction was also not available to the appellants in the civil suit. 5. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, contends that this appeal raises following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether the learned Courts below wrongly relied upon the judgment and decree passed in favour of defendant/respondents against defendant No.1, even though the appellants were not party? 2. Whether the mortgagee rights of the appellants had matured into ownership on expiry of period of limitation prescribed for redemption of mortgage?” 6. In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended, that the decree being executed against the appellants was, in fact, decree between the defendant/respondents-decree-holder and defendant No.1, the mortgagor of the property, in which the plaintiff/appellants were not party and, therefore, that suit could have no bearing on the rights of the appellants. 7. This contention cannot be disputed. 7. This contention cannot be disputed. However, this question does not arise for the simple reasons, that the remedy with the appellants was to file third party objections against the execution of decree, before the learned Executing Court and civil suit to restrain the execution of the decree was not competent. 8. As regards the second substantial question of law is concerned, the same stand answered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court holding that no limitation is prescribed for redemption of mortgage. The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellants. No merit. Dismissed. ----------