JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The plaintiffs reared civil Suit No. 178/1 of 1996 before the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Arki, District Solan, H.P. In the afore civil suit, the plaintiff claimed rendition of a decree of declaration, that since the mortgage created qua their predecessors-in-interest qua the suit land, rather in the year 1951, remaining unredeemed, through liquidation of the mortgage money by the defendants to the plaintiffs, hence, through afflux of time, they be declared as owners-in-possessions of the suit land. Moreover, the plaintiffs also claimed rendition of a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their possession over the suit land. The learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Arki, decreed the afore suit. The aggrieved defendants constituted thereagainst Civil Appeal bearing No. 22-S/13 of 2003, before the learned District Judge, Solan. Upon the afore Civil Appeal, the learned First Appellate Court made a verdict affirming the verdict rendered by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Arki. 2. The defendants becoming aggrieved therefrom, hence, are led to institute the extant Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 3. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 18th November, 2004, hence, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants, against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether acceptance of further amount of mortgage in terms of Ex. Px by the mortgagor on 12.1.1973, extended the period of limitation for redemption? 2. Whether the courts below arrived at the findings, ignoring the true interpretation of expression “at any time” as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanshi Ram vs. Lachhman? Substantial question of Law No.1: 4. The parties at contest do not wrangle, vis-a-vis, an equitable mortgage, vis-a-vis, the suit land, becoming created by the predecessor(s)-in-interest of the defendants, vis-a-vis, the predecessor(s)-in-interest of the plaintiffs. The afore mortgage was created in the year 1951. 5. Even though, upon, expiry of a period of 30 years, to be computed from the year 1951, inasmuch as, in the year 1981, the plaintiff could, subject to the pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, claim a decree of foreclosure, and, consequent therewith declaratory decree qua theirs becoming owners-inpossession of the suit land. 5. Even though, upon, expiry of a period of 30 years, to be computed from the year 1951, inasmuch as, in the year 1981, the plaintiff could, subject to the pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, claim a decree of foreclosure, and, consequent therewith declaratory decree qua theirs becoming owners-inpossession of the suit land. However, prior to the institution of civil suit bearing No. 178/1 of 1996, inasmuch as in the year 1973, the defendants/mortgagors contend that thereat, the mortgage initially created in the year 1951, became renewed or became acknowledged to be extended. The afore contention becomes rested, upon, Ex.Px. The validity of execution of Ex. Px, has remained unchallenged. Consequently, since, it became drawn on 12.1.1973, hence, much prior to the expiry of the relevant period of limitation, inasmuch, as, in the year 1981, thereupon, it is to be adjudged, whether it tantamounts to renovation of the mortgage created in the year 1951, (i)and, also concomitantly, whether therethrough, the period of limitation for any relevant purpose became extended. As aforestated, the validity of occurrence of respective signatures or thumb impression(s) on Ex. Px, though has remained unchallenged, nonetheless, an incisive perusal thereof, is, required. The necessity thereof arises, from, whether therein occur(s) candid recitals, hence extending the longevity of the initially created mortgage in the year 1951, (ii) and/or whether it is a renovation of the earlier contract of mortgage drawn inter se the respective predecessor(s)-in-interest of the contesting litigants concerned, rather in the year 1951. In the afore endeavour, this Court has perused, the contents of Ex. Px, and, it discovers that therethrough, on the date of its drawing, inasmuch, as, on 12.01.1973, the initially created mortgage qua the suit land, and, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, became extended. Even, a perusal of the testification of the plaintiff, one Sant Ram, as, existing in his examination-in-chief, underscores, the validity of drawing of Ex. Px in the year 1973. The afore echoing occurring in the examination-in-chief of PW-1 one Sant Ram, is reiterated in his cross-examination, inasmuch, as his acquiescing to an affirmative suggestion that on the date of drawing of Ex. Px, the amount mentioned therein, being respectively liquidated, and, being lent to the mortgagors/defendants. 6. In nutshell, with the validity of drawing of Ex. Px becoming clinchingly proven, thereupon, Ex. Px, the amount mentioned therein, being respectively liquidated, and, being lent to the mortgagors/defendants. 6. In nutshell, with the validity of drawing of Ex. Px becoming clinchingly proven, thereupon, Ex. Px tantamounts to an acknowledgement not only with respect to the renovation of the earlier mortgage entered into in the year 1951, vis-a-vis, the suit land, and, inter se the contesting litigants, through their respective predecessors-in-interest, (i) but also tantamounts to, that therethrough, the period of limitation for redemption of mortgage money, by the mortgagors to the mortgagees being extended. The further corollary thereof, is that the period of limitation of 30 years, prescribed for the relevant purpose, being computable from 1973, and, hence, the plaintiffs' suit filed in the year 1996, was hit by limitation, and, became amenable for being dismissed. Consequently, substantial question of law No.1 is answered in favour of the appellants/defendants, and, against the respondents/plaintiffs. 7. The meteing of an answer, vis-a-vis, the defendants/appellants, upon, substantial question of law No.1, does not necessitate, any answer being meted, on substantial question of law No.2, (a) as, otherwise also since the plaintiffs' suit is not filed under the H. P. Debt Reduction Act, rather is filed under the relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, thereupon, the judgment mentioned in the substantial question of law No./2, is, not applicable, vis-a-vis, the lis at hand. 8. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court, are not based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court, have excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 9. In view of the above discussion, there is merit in the extant appeal, and, it is allowed. In sequel, the judgements and decrees, rendered by both the learned Courts below, are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.