JUDGMENT Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. - This is defendants' appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that proforma respondents- defendants No.4 and 5 being owners of the suit land, i.e., agricultural land measuring 61 kanal 7 marlas, mortgaged it with the respondents-plaintiffs No.1 and 2 (hereinafter, referred to as 'plaintiffs') for a sum of Rs. 4,500 on 17.10.1951. They later sold the suit land to appellants-defendants No.1 to 3 (hereinafter, referred to as 'defendants'). The possession, however, remained with the plaintiffs as being mortgagees. It was pleaded, as the mortgage in question was not redeemed by the original mortgagors or their vendees/defendants within the prescribed limitation period of 30 years, the plaintiffs had become full-fledged owners of the suit land by efflux of time; therefore, declaration to that effect be issued. 3. Defendants contested the suit by admitting that respondents No.4 and 5, original owners of the suit land, sold it to them on 15.06.1956 for a sum of Rs. 4,500. They, accordingly, became owners in possession of the land. The encumbrance on the land was got removed on payment of mortgage amount to the plaintiffs' father on 14.06.1956. Therefore, the plaintiffs neither have any right, title or interest in the suit land, nor can they be declared owners thereof, nor can any prohibitory injunction in their favour be issued. 4. Upon pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled for trial of the suit: '1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as mortgagees? OPP 2. Whether the land was got redeemed by defendants from Chand Singh on 14.6.1956, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration claimed for? OPP 4. Whether the land in dispute was allotted in lieu of original mortgaged land? OPP 5. Relief." 5. On Issue no.2, the defendants claimed to have redeemed the mortgage on 14.06.1956 by paying the mortgage amount of Rs. 2,900 to the plaintiffs' father, who, in turn, executed receipt Exh.D2, extinguishing all encumbrances on the mortgage in question. It has been held by both the Courts below that receipt, Exh.D2, bears the thumb impressions of plaintiffs' father which have been duly proved by evidence of DW-9. The amount of the mortgage, though pleaded to be Rs. 4,500, was held to be Rs. It has been held by both the Courts below that receipt, Exh.D2, bears the thumb impressions of plaintiffs' father which have been duly proved by evidence of DW-9. The amount of the mortgage, though pleaded to be Rs. 4,500, was held to be Rs. 2,900 as mentioned in receipt, Exh.D2, dated 14.06.1956, as well as the sale deed dated 15.06.1956 Exh.D1, vide which the suit land was purchased by the defendants. It has further been held by both the Courts that receipt Exh.D2, cannot be held to have extinguished the mortgage in question. The amount of the mortgage being more than Rs. 100 as also value of the suit land, the receipt in question required compulsory registration. Besides, receipt Exh.D2 contained a recital that the mortgage amount has been received by father of the plaintiffs, and the mortgage stood redeemed by surrendering possession of the suit land. It was held, since the receipt extinguished the mortgage and also recorded that possession had been handed over, it required compulsory registration which was not done. Therefore, the receipt is not admissible in evidence, and based on that redemption of mortgage cannot be accepted. 6. It was further held that receipt Exh.D2, by which the mortgage money was paid to the plaintiffs, was executed on 14.06.1956; whereas, the defendants purchased the suit land from the original owners on the following date, i.e., 15.06.1956, vide registered sale deed Exh.D1. Therefore, on the date of execution of the receipt in question, they were not owners of the property and could not have redeemed the mortgage. Their right to extinguish the mortgage would only arise after 15.06.1956, on becoming owners of the suit land and not prior thereto. In these circumstances, receipt Exh.D2 was taken to mean only that defendants purchased the mortgagee rights of the suit land from the plaintiffs. Accordingly, findings on issue no.2 were returned. 7. On the issue of possession, Courts below have held that merely because father of the plaintiffs mentioned in receipt Exh.D2 that possession of the mortgaged land had been surrendered, it was of no significance. All the revenue records, including jamabandis and khasra girdawaris after execution of the receipt Exh.D2, recorded possession of the mortgaged suit land in the name of plaintiffs. Even in consolidation proceedings, the plaintiffs were held to be in possession of the suit land and their share was separately created in khatauni pamaish (Exh.D6). All the revenue records, including jamabandis and khasra girdawaris after execution of the receipt Exh.D2, recorded possession of the mortgaged suit land in the name of plaintiffs. Even in consolidation proceedings, the plaintiffs were held to be in possession of the suit land and their share was separately created in khatauni pamaish (Exh.D6). Accordingly findings on Issue nos.1 and 3 were returned. 8. On these findings, the suit was decreed holding the plaintiffs owners in possession of the suit land, and the trial Court findings were affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. 9. Learned senior counsel for the appellants-defendants has argued, even if the receipt Exh.D2, by which the mortgage in question stood redeemed, is not be read in evidence for want of registration, plaintiffs' civil suit could not have been decreed on account of the settled law that, 'once a mortgage always a mortgage'. Therefore, the defendants, having purchased the suit land from the original owners by registered sale deed dated 15.06.1956, they have every right to redeem the mortgage and take possession of the property. 10. In this background the substantial question of law that arises for consideration is; whether right of the usufructuary mortgagor to redeem the mortgaged property and recover possession will stand frustrated on expiry of the prescribed limitation period of 30 years under Article 61 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 11. It is not in dispute that encumbrance on the mortgaged suit land was removed by the defendants by paying the mortgage amount to the plaintiffs' father on 14.06.1956, who executed receipt Exh.D2, to that effect. Notwithstanding findings of the Courts below that the mortgage cannot be said to have been redeemed on that basis as the receipt is inadmissible in evidence for want of compulsory registration, it stands established that the defendants have stepped into the shoes of the original mortgagor by purchasing the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 15.06.1956 (Exh.D1). They have, therefore, acquired rights as mortgagors with respect to the suit land. The law on the issue of redemption of mortgage is well established that the bar of limitation of 30 years for redeeming a mortgage would not be applicable in case of usufructuary mortgage, which is the nature of mortgage in question. They have, therefore, acquired rights as mortgagors with respect to the suit land. The law on the issue of redemption of mortgage is well established that the bar of limitation of 30 years for redeeming a mortgage would not be applicable in case of usufructuary mortgage, which is the nature of mortgage in question. It is also settled that usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to file a suit for declaration claiming ownership of the mortgaged property on the expiry of 30 years from the date of mortgage. The findings of the Courts below that the plaintiffs have become owners of the mortgaged land, and the same could not be redeemed by defendants after expiry of the period of limitation, are, therefore, contrary to law and cannot be sustained. 12. Reference in this regard can be made to law laid down by the Supreme Court in Singh Ram (D) through L.Rs Vs. Sheo Ram & others, (2014) 9 SCC 185 . While upholding Full Bench judgment of this Court, the Supreme Court held, in case of usufructuary mortgage mere expiry of 30 years from the date of creation of mortgage does not extinguish the mortgagor's right to redeem the mortgage under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Para 15 of the judgment reads as under: 15. We, thus, hold that special right of usufructuary mortgagor under section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act to recover possession commences in the manner specified therein, i.e., when mortgage money is paid out of rents and profits or partly out of rents and profits and partly by payment or deposit by mortgagor. Until then, limitation does not start for purposes of Article 61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. A usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to file a suit for declaration that he had become an owner merely on the expiry of 30 years from the date of the mortgage. We answer the question accordingly. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. Both the judgments and decree of the Courts below are set aside and the plaintiffs' suit for declaration is dismissed.