JUDGMENT : Anil Kshetarpal, J. 1. By this order, two appeals i.e. RSA-5347-2003 and CR-6201- 2012, shall stand disposed of. 2. The defendant-appellant has filed the Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below while deciding the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he has become owner of the property on account of lapse of time as the defendant has failed to redeem the mortgage. In other words, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for foreclosure. The registered mortgage deed was executed on 02.06.1964 for a sum of Rs. 2000/-. The execution of mortgage deed and delivery of possession by the mortgagor to the mortgagee is not disputed. 3. On reading of the mortgage deed, which is Ex.PW2/A, it is apparent that Gurnam Singh son of Gurdit Singh had mortgaged three bighas and 14 biswas pukhta along with share in Canal Water for a sum of Rs. 2000/-. A translation of the mortgage deed (relevant part) produced by learned counsel for the parties, is extracted as under:- “TRUE TRANSLATION OF RELEVANT AND OPERATIVE PART OF MORTGAGE DEED DATED 02.06.1964 "Office of Sub Registrar Sangrur. Deed of mortgage of land. Mortgage amount Rs. 2000/- Stamp Paper Rs. 45/- Words about 200 I Gurnam Singh aged 55 years son of Gurdit Singh son of Bhagwan Singh of Village Mangwal Tehsil and District Sangrur, hereby mortgage 3 Bigha Pukhta 14 Biswas Pukhta (Pukhta means Pakka Bighas) comprised of Khata No. 40/51 killa Nos. 44/16/2(0-4), 17/1(1-4), 24/1(1- 7), 25/1(0-9) situated at Village Mangwal as per Fard Patwar jamabandi for the year of 1957-58 alongwith 1/8 share in 'Canal water course turn, also alongwith all rights including water course, path for Rs. 2000/- half of which comes to Rs. 1000/- with Jangir Singh, Surjit Singh sons of Kehar Singh of Village Bhaike Bhasaur now resident of village Mangwal, in equal share. The mortgage amount of Rs. 2000/- shall be received in front of Sub Registrar Sangrur. The possession has already been delivered to the mortgagee who can take profits of produce of the land. Amount is required to clear the loan. Mortgagor can get the land redeemed by paying the mortgage amount of Rs.2000/- in the start of year. (Rahin (mortgagor) 2000 rupaye jar rehan Mortgage amount) dekar shuru saal mein arazi murhan (Mortgage land) fak kara sakega). Amount is required to clear the loan. Mortgagor can get the land redeemed by paying the mortgage amount of Rs.2000/- in the start of year. (Rahin (mortgagor) 2000 rupaye jar rehan Mortgage amount) dekar shuru saal mein arazi murhan (Mortgage land) fak kara sakega). So this mortgage deed is written with sound health and mind so that it may remain Sanad and may be used. Dated 02.06.1964.” 4. The plaintiff claims that since 30 years have lapsed and since the defendant has failed to redeem, therefore, he is entitled to a decree, as prayed for. 5. The defendant contested the suit by pleading that he is in possession of the property as the mortgage had been redeemed on payment of Rs. 2000/- on 25.06.1991, evidenced by a receipt and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration. 6. Learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff with regard to declaration that the plaintiff has become owner by foreclosure as the defendant has failed to redeem. However, it was held that the defendant is in possession of the property. The trial Court held that the receipt Ex.D1, the evidence of redemption of the mortgage is not admissible in evidence being unregistered in view of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act. Two appeals were filed, one by the plaintiff and second by the defendant. 7. Learned First Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment passed by the learned trial Court while declaring that the plaintiff has become owner of the mortgaged property by foreclosure as the period for redemption has lapsed. However, the finding of the trial Court that the defendant is in possession of the property has also been affirmed. The Court further found that Ex.D1 cannot be read in evidence. 8. In the considered view of this Court, following questions require adjudication:- (1) Whether the mortgage is a usufructuary mortgage without prescribing any time for redemption and, therefore, the limitation would not begin to run from the date of the mortgage? (2) Whether Ex.D1, the receipt is not admissible in evidence being unregistered and therefore, it cannot be looked into? (3) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for mere declaration is maintainable in absence of consequential relief of possession which the plaintiff failed to claim? 9. Relevant part of mortgage deed has been extracted above. 10. (2) Whether Ex.D1, the receipt is not admissible in evidence being unregistered and therefore, it cannot be looked into? (3) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for mere declaration is maintainable in absence of consequential relief of possession which the plaintiff failed to claim? 9. Relevant part of mortgage deed has been extracted above. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent does not dispute that the mortgage falls in the category of usufructuary mortgage. However, he submits that the mortgage was only for a period of one year and, hence, the reckoning date would be after the lapse of one year from the date of mortgage. 11. On careful reading of the mortgage deed, it is apparent that what has been recited in the mortgage is that the mortgagor can get the land redeemed by paying mortgage amount in the start of the year. Obvious meaning is that the redemption can be on the start of agricultural year, which happens every year. The words used is “not after a period of one year”. It is not provided that the mortgage cannot be redeemed if it is not redeemed after the lapse of first year. The agricultural year starts from 16th June every year because in the month of June, normally the agricultural lands are vacant after the crop has been harvested and hence, available for delivery of possession. The interpretation being put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted because the language as used in the mortgage deed, does not specifically provide that the mortgage is for a period of one year. 12. After crossing first hurdle, now the question arises as to whether the suit for foreclosure is maintainable in case the mortgage is usufructuary mortgage without providing for any time/period for redemption. The answer to this question has already been given by the Larger Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Singh Ram (deceased) through LRs Vs. Sheo Ram and others, 2014(9) SCC 185 . Hence, the first question is answered in favour of the defendant-appellant. 13. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the words used are in Urdu that “shuru saal mein” which means only the next agricultural year. 14. The words in urdu “shuru saal mein” means, in the beginning of the year. However, the words “shuru saal mein” cannot be read in a manner that it is only next year. 13. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the words used are in Urdu that “shuru saal mein” which means only the next agricultural year. 14. The words in urdu “shuru saal mein” means, in the beginning of the year. However, the words “shuru saal mein” cannot be read in a manner that it is only next year. Learned counsel for the respondents has although made a sincere attempt, however, this Court is of the considered view that the words “shuru saal mein” does not mean that period of redemption was prescribed as one year. 15. Now let us examine question No.2. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents admits that Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act was never extended to the area of the State of Punjab. However, the Registration Act, 1908 is applicable. As per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, any non-testamentary instrument, which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property shall be compulsorily registered. The document Ex.D2 amounts to extinguishment of mortgage rights in the immovable property of the value of more than Rs. 100/-, therefore, was required to be registered. Hence, for a different reason, the finding of both the Courts that Ex.D1 is not admissible in evidence is upheld. 17. Now let us examine issue No.3. 18. Finding of facts have been arrived at by the Courts below that the plaintiff is no longer in possession of the property. There is no counter appeal by the plaintiff. Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 prescribes that if the plaintiff files a suit for declaration and he is entitled to a further relief but omits to claim the same, then the Court shall also not grant decree of declaration. In the present case, since it is found that the plaintiff is not in possession and has also not sought possession, therefore, not entitled to any such declaration. 19. Civil Revision No.6201 of 2012 is arising from an order passed by the learned trial Court in a subsequent suit filed by legal heirs of the plaintiff in the previous suit. In the present case, since it is found that the plaintiff is not in possession and has also not sought possession, therefore, not entitled to any such declaration. 19. Civil Revision No.6201 of 2012 is arising from an order passed by the learned trial Court in a subsequent suit filed by legal heirs of the plaintiff in the previous suit. In the aforesaid suit, legal heirs of Jangir Singh claim that they are owners of the suit property and are entitled to the relief of possession. Since, this Court has already declared that the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration that he has become owner by prescription of time, therefore, the plaintiff is also not entitled to the relief of possession. It is doubtful whether subsequent suit can be filed by the plaintiff or his legal heirs. 20. In view thereof, RSA No.5347 of 2003 is allowed by declaring that the defendant continues to be the owner in possession and is entitled to redeem the mortgage. Whereas CR No.6201 of 2012 is dismissed as infructuous. The defendant shall be entitled to produce copy of the judgment before the trial Court and pray for disposal of the subsequent suit. 21. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of, in view of the above said judgment.