JUDGMENT : ARVIND KUMAR, J. 1. There is a delay of 521 days in filing this appeal. As to whether any fruitful purpose would be served in ordering for notice on the respondent on I.A.No.I/2015, this Court has scrutinized the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and notices that such exercise of issuing the notice if undertaken by this Court would only be an exercise in futility for the reasons indicated herein below. 2. This is a plaintiff's second appeal calling in question the judgment and decree passed by die III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, in R.A.No.48/2013 dated 12.01.2014 where under appeal filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2012 passed in O.S. No.581/2008 by the II Addl. Civil Judge and m JMFC Court, Hubli, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that the plaintiff has perfected his title over suit schedule property by virtue of adverse possession came to be dismissed, had been affirmed. 3. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he has perfected his title over suit property by virtue of adverse possession and that defendants have lost their right, title and interest over the suit property and for consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants by a decree of permanent injunction from interfering, obstructing with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit property. It was contended that suit property is a residential house and was earlier belonging to one Sri. Shantappa Padmarajappa Prathamashetty who had on 17.05.1962 mortgaged the same with possession for a sum of Rs.4,000/- to one Sri. Bhimappa Mallappa Medleri through a registered deed of mortgage for four years who intum had transferred the right of possessory mortgage to one Sri. Raghavendra Pandurang Naik of Hubli through a registered deed dated 02.08.1971 and he in turn had sold the said possessory mortgage rights to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,500/- with possession on 06.12.1983 and as such, plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from the date he purchased Mortgage rights i.e., on 02.08.1971 without any interference and obstruction from anybody much-less from defendants and the name of plaintiff is also entered in the property extract and city survey records of Municipal body. It was also contended that defendant No.4 has no right, title or interest in the suit property and defendant Nos.1 to 3 who had ownership right earlier in the suit property have lost it over the years subsequent to several transaction of possessory mortgage. On account of alleged threats posed by the defendants, plaintiff filed the suit in question for the reliefs mentioned in the plaint and as afore stated. 4. During the pendency of suit, plaint came to be amended and plaintiff also sought that the decree dated 28.06.2003 obtained against plaintiff in O.S.No.198/1996 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge, Hubli, is neither binding on the plaintiff nor is acceptable one as against the suit property namely the decree obtained by Sri. Shantappa Padmarajappa Prathamashetty i.e., father of defendants 1 to 3. Defendants on service of suit summons appeared and filed their written statement contending that plaintiff has no ownership or right over the suit property and it is contended that suit for redemption of possessory mortgage had been filed by their father in O.S.No. 198/1996 and same had been mortgaged with possession to one Bhimappa Medleri. It is not in dispute that present plaintiff was the 24th defendant in the said suit who had not contested the said suit and said suit being decreed on 28.06.2003 directing 24th defendant to execute the redemption of mortgage deed in favour of the father of defendants 1 to 3 and handing over possession by receiving Rs.3,500/- which had been deposited in Court, present suit had been filed. It is also stated that present plaintiff had filed an appeal in R.A.No. 197/2003 challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 198/1996 and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 17.12.2007 by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli and plaintiff had not preferred any appeal against the decree dated 28.06.2003 and it has become final. It was also contended that defendants 1 to 3 have entered into an agreement of sale dated 15.07.2008 in favour of 4th defendant in respect of suit property and other adjacent property and on requesting the present plaintiff to execute redemption mortgage deed in respect of suit property by receiving Rs.3,500/- deposited in die Court, plaintiff has not handed over possession and has demanded Rs.5 lakhs for handing over possession of the suit property. On these grounds, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has perfected his title over the suit property by way of adverse possession? 2. Whether the defendants prove that defendant No.1 to defendant No.3 are the absolute owners of the suit property and that defendant No.1 to defendant No.3 have entered into an agreement of sale with defendant No.4 with respect to the suit property vide agreement of sale dated 15.07.2008? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the ex parte decree passed in favour of the defendants in OS No. 198/96 is neither binding nor executable against the plaintiff? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants interfered with his peaceful possession over the suit property? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relied sought? 6. What order or decree?" 6. Plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got exhibited documents Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P.44 and on behalf of the defendants, father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 examined himself as DW-1 and 4th defendant got examined as DW-2 and on their behalf got marked documents Ex.D. 1 to Ex.D.8. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and on appreciation of evidence tendered by the parties, trial Court below dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 11.12.2012. 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A.No.48/2013. The lower appellate court after securing the records of the trial Court and after considering rival contentions raised, formulated the following points for its consideration: "1. Whether the plaintiff has made out the grounds to receive the photos by way of additional evidence? 2. Whether the plaintiff has proved that he is perfected his title over the suit property by adverse possession? 3. Whether the plaintiff has proved that judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 198/1996 is not binding on the plaintiff? 4. Whether the plaintiff has proved that defendants are illegally trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property? 5. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is contrary to the facts of law and evidence on record, hence requires interference from this court? 8. 4. Whether the plaintiff has proved that defendants are illegally trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property? 5. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is contrary to the facts of law and evidence on record, hence requires interference from this court? 8. After hearing learned advocates appearing for the parties and on re-appreciation of evidence tendered by the parties before the trial Court, lower appellate court by its judgment and decree dated 12.01.2015 dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is this judgment and decree which has been called in question by the unsuccessful plaintiff in this appeal. 9. It is the contention of Mr. Rohit S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that lower appellate court had not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and contends that judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 198/1996 and R.A.No. 199/2003 are ex parte judgment and decree and would have no bearing on the claim made in the present suit. He would also submit that the evidence tendered would indicate that plaintiff has admitted that 4th defendant to be the owner and against whom he has established hostile title and as such there is 'animus' established by the plaintiff and thereby the requirements of adverse possession are established by the plaintiff which has not been properly considered by the Court below. He would also submit that documentary evidence tendered in general i.e., Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.44 would indicate that plaintiff's possession and title is adverse to that of 4th defendant and this aspect has not been properly appreciated and as such, the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal would arise for consideration. Hence, he prays for same being formulated, adjudicated and answered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and on perusal of judgment and decree passed by the Court below, this Court is of the view that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal for being formulated, adjudicated and answered for the reasons indicated herein below. 11. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that "once a mortgagee" is "always a mortgagee" and a mortgagee cannot set up title in himself. In the instant case, the owner of the suit property undisputedly filed a suit for redemption of mortgage in O.S.No. 198/1996. 11. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition that "once a mortgagee" is "always a mortgagee" and a mortgagee cannot set up title in himself. In the instant case, the owner of the suit property undisputedly filed a suit for redemption of mortgage in O.S.No. 198/1996. Said suit was decreed on 28.06.2003. Present plaintiff was the 24th defendant in said suit and he did not challenge the said judgment and decree. However, defendants 12, 13, 14, 17 and 23 had filed an appeal in R.A.No. 197/2003 against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2003 passed in O.S.No. 198/1996. In the said appeal, present plaintiff was arrayed as 18th respondent and said appeal also came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 17.12.2007. In the said R.A.No. 197/2003, no cross appeal or cross objection has been filed by the present plaintiff and as such, he being a party to the said proceedings, has virtually accepted the said judgment and decree. 12. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Apex Com in the case of Gurdwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another ( 2014 (1) SCC 669 ) has held that the suit seeking declaration of ownership by adverse possession is impermissible. It has been held by the Apex Court as under: "However, we also find from the reading of the judgment of the High Court that the High Court has refused the injunction observing that the appellant was not entitled to the same as it is the Gram Panchayat which is the owner of the property in dispute and as the appellant is in possession without any right, it has no right to seek injunction against the Grant Panchayat. This finding is totally perverse and in fact, unnecessary. In the first instance, there was no occasion or reason for the appellant's counsel to seek this prayer in the Second Appeal. As pointed out above, the relief of injunction had already been granted by the Civil Court and this portion of the decree had not been challenged by the respondents. Decree to this extent in favour of the appellant hat attained finality. The First Appellate Court also specifically recorded this fact and observer that by not challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, the respondents accepted that the appellant was in adverse possession of the land since 13.4.1952. Decree to this extent in favour of the appellant hat attained finality. The First Appellate Court also specifically recorded this fact and observer that by not challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, the respondents accepted that the appellant was in adverse possession of the land since 13.4.1952. We, thus, clarify that observations of the High Court that the appellant is not entitled to injunction, were unnecessary and beyond the scope of the appeal." 13. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as noticed herein above and also in the facts obtained in the present case, it is seen that undisputedly plaintiff is a mortgagee and he does not get any title over the suit property. He would not be entitled to claim adverse possession and at the cost of repetition, it requires to be held that plaintiff being a mortgagee, help continues to be a mortgagee and his right if any has got circumscribed by the decree passed in the redemption suit O.S.No. 198/1996. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no merit in this appeal and as such, question of issuing notice on I.A.No.I/2015 would not arise. Hence, appeal stand rejected and the judgment and decree passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, in R.A.No. 48/2013 dated 12.01.2014 stands affirmed.