JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Plaintiffs-Raj Karan Singh and Sukhdev Singh sons of Ajit Singh who were successful in the trial Court but have been non-suited by the lower Appellate Court are in second appeal. 2. Case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land was mortgaged with possession by predecessor in interest of the defendants/respondents with Ajit Singh father and predecessor of the plaintiffs/appellants and the mortgage was not redeemed within limitation period and therefore, plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by eflux of time. In the alternative, the plaintiffs also claimed to have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. Accordingly, besides seeking declaration to this effect, plaintiffs also sought permanent injunction. 3. Only defendant No.1 contested the suit whereas remaining defendants were proceeded ex parte. 4. Defendant No.1 alleged that the mortgage was redeemed on 29.02.1960 by paying the mortgage money to mortgagee Ajit Singh against receipt and after redemption, possession of the suit land was delivered to the mortgagers. However, thereafter Ajit Singh took the suit land as tenant. 5. Defendant No.1 also set up counter claim for possession of the suit land. 6. Plaintiffs filed replication controverting the stand taken by defendant No.1 including the counter claim set up by defendant No.1. 7. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2005 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and dismissed counter claim preferred by defendant No.1. However, first appeal preferred by defendant No.1-Jagmohan Singh has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Tarn Taran vide judgment and decree dated 15.09.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed and counter claim of defendant No.1 has also been dismissed with stipulation that he is entitled to possession of the suit land only on payment of mortgage money by redemption of the mortgage. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 9. At the outset, it has to be noticed that that counsel for plaintiffs/appellants has not pressed the claim of the plaintiffs to have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. 10. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 9. At the outset, it has to be noticed that that counsel for plaintiffs/appellants has not pressed the claim of the plaintiffs to have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that since the mortgage was not redeemed within limitation period of 30 years, appellants/plaintiffs have become owners of the suit land by eflux of time being mortgagees thereof. It was pointed out that lower Appellate Court has held that neither the mortgage was redeemed nor fresh tenancy was created in favour of plaintiffs’ predecessor Ajit Singh, as alleged by defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sampuran Singh versus Niranjan Kaur, 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 203 and Prabhakaran & others Versus M. Azhagiri Pillai (Dead) by LRs & others, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 428 to contend that there is limitation period for redemption of usufructuary mortgage also and the limitation period starts from the date of creation of mortgage if no period for redemption is specified. It was also contended that in this case, it was also not even usufructuary mortgage but was anomalous mortgage and therefore, limitation period for redemption of mortgage commenced on the date of mortgage itself and the mortgage having not been redeemed within limitation period of 30 years, the plaintiffs as mortgagees have become owners of the suit land by eflux of time. It was also submitted that ratio of law laid down in Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Kishan and others versus Sheo Ram and others, [2008(1) Law Herald (P&H) (FB) 46] : 2008(1) RCR (Civil), 335 has been referred to larger Bench by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.08.2008 in SLP (Civil) No.11029 of 2008. 11. On the contrary, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1 contended that in view of Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra), limitation period for redemption of usufructuary mortgage commences when the mortgager pays or tenders to the mortgagee or deposits in Court the mortgage money or the balance thereof, where no time limit is fixed for redemption of the mortgage. It was contended that in the instant case, the mortgage admittedly being with possession is usufructuary mortgage and therefore, there was no limitation period for redemption of the mortgage because no period was specified for redemption thereof. It was thus contended that once a mortgage is always a mortgage. Reliance in support of this contention has also been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harbans versus Om Parkash and others, [2005(4) Law Herald (P&H) 707 (SC)] : (2006) 1 Supreme Court cases 129; judgment of this court in case of Gurdev Kaur and others versus Niranjan Singh and another, 2008(2) PLR, 360; unreported judgment of this Court dated 08.11.2011 in RSA No.2628 of 1992 (O&M) titled Ram Kumar and others versus Mohinder and others; judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Achaldas Durgaji Oswal (dead) through LRs versus Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda (dead) through LRs and others, (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 614 and M/s. L. K. Trust versus EDC Ltd. & others, 2012(1) Rent Law Reporter 1. 12. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 13. Admittedly the mortgage in question was mortgage with possession. No other terms and conditions have been pleaded even by the plaintiffs. Consequently it was usufructuary mortgage. In view of judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) and also in view of other judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court as relied on by counsel for respondent No.1, there is no escape from the conclusion that being usufructuary mortgage and there being no period specified for redemption thereof, the plaintiffs as mortgagees have not become owners of the suit land by eflux of time. On the other hand, right of mortgagees to redeem the mortgage still subsists. Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Sampuran Singh (supra) and Prabhakaran & others (supra) relied on by counsel for the appellant, have also been discussed in Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra). Ratio of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) has not yet been overruled either by larger Bench of this Court or by Supreme Court. Ratio of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) has not yet been overruled either by larger Bench of this Court or by Supreme Court. On the other hand, judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by counsel for respondent No.1 as noticed hereinbefore also specifically stipulate that in the case of usufructuary mortgage, it is always a mortgage. 14. In view of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation in affirming the finding of lower appellate Court that plaintiffs as mortgagees have not become owners of the suit land by eflux of time nor they have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession. The question of law raised by counsel for appellants regarding limitation period for redemption of mortgage already stands answered against the appellants by Full Bench of this court in the case of Ram Kishan (supra) and therefore, no question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. ------------------