JUDGMENT : S. SOUNTHAR, J. Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree, dated 11.06.2001, passed in A.S. No. 165 of 2001 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 14.06.2000, passed in unnumbered plaint of 2000 on the file of District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai. 1. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit was filed for redemption of usufructuary mortgage. The plaint was rejected by the trial Court on the ground of limitation. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the first appellate Court, affirming the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Kandasamy Panicker. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 were the persons claiming under the said Kandasamy Panicker. It was claimed by the plaintiff that Kandasamy Panicker executed a usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of one Nallathambi Panicker for a mortgage debt of Rs.500/-. As per the terms of the mortgage deed, the plaintiff was allowed to redeem the property after expiry of three years. The defendants 7 to 9 in the suit were heirs of mortgagee Nallathambi Panicker. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6, who were all heirs of Kandasamy Panicker, were entitled to redeem the suit property from the heirs of Nallathambi Panicker, namely, the defendants 7 to 9, by paying mortgage debt. When the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 approached defendants 7 to 9 for redemption of the property, it was represented by them that the suit property was sold to Nallathambi Panicker by Kandasamy Panicker for a sum of Rs.5000/- orally and hence claimed absolute right over the property. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for redemption of usufructuary mortgage. 3. The plaint, presented by the appellant, was rejected by the trial Court on the ground of limitation. The trial Court opined that the usufructuary mortgage was executed on 20.11.1942 and as per the recitals in the document, the period for redemption was three years. The trial Court held that the plaintiff should have filed the suit within 30 years from the date of expiry of three year time limit. The trial Court opined that the usufructuary mortgage was executed on 20.11.1942 and as per the recitals in the document, the period for redemption was three years. The trial Court held that the plaintiff should have filed the suit within 30 years from the date of expiry of three year time limit. However, the present suit filed beyond the period of 33 years was barred by limitation. Hence, the trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 165 of 2001 on the file of Sub-Court, Aruppukkottai. The first appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff should have filed the suit within 33 years and the present suit filed beyond 33 years was barred by limitation and hence dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 4. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial question of law, by an order, dated 26.04.2004: “Whether the Limitation Act, 1908, is applicable to the present case, or the Limitation Act 1963, is applicable to the present case?” 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the time of argument, not pressed the question of law framed at the time of admission, but argued on a new question of law. The learned counsel submitted that in case of usufructuary mortgage deed, limitation for redemption starts only on payment of mortgage debt by the mortgagor and, in the case on hand, the mortgage debt was deposited into the Court at the time of presentation of the plaint and, therefore, the suit was very well within limitation period. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on a decision of the Apex Court in Singh Ram v. Sheo Ram, 2014 (9) SCC 185 . 6. On the basis of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the following substantial question of law is taken up for consideration: “Whether the order passed by the Courts below, rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation, was in accordance with law? 7. 6. On the basis of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellants, the following substantial question of law is taken up for consideration: “Whether the order passed by the Courts below, rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation, was in accordance with law? 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that under the mortgage deed, the plaintiff was given three years' time to redeem the property and after expiry of three years' time on 19.11.1945, the present suit should have been filed within 30 years i.e., on or before 19.11.1975, however, the suit was filed only in the year 2000 and, therefore, the same was hopelessly barred by limitation. 8. In case of usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagee is allowed to enjoy the property in lieu of interest payable on mortgage debt. Therefore, the limitation for redemption will start only on payment of mortgage debt by the mortgagor. The said position has been settled by the Apex Court in Singh Ram's case, cited supra. The relevant observation of the Apex Court in this regard reads as follows: “12. It will be appropriate to refer to the statutory provisions of the T.P. Act and the Limitation Act: “T.P. Act 58. “Mortgage”, “mortgagor”, “mortgagee”, “mortgage-money” and “mortgaged” defined. (a) A mortgage is the transfer of an interest in specific immovable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may give rise to a pecuniary liability. The transferor is called a mortgagor, the transferee a mortgagee; the principal money and interest of which payment is secured for the time being are called the mortgage-money, and the instrument (if any) by which the transfer is effected is called a mortgage-deed. (b) Simple mortgage-Where, without delivering possession of the mortgaged property, the mortgagor binds himself personally to pay the mortgage-money, and agrees, expressly or impliedly, that, in the event of his failing to pay according to his contract, the mortgagee shall have a right to cause the mortgaged property to be sold and the proceeds of sale to be applied, so far as may be necessary, in payment of the mortgage-money, the transaction is called a simple mortgage and the mortgagee a simple mortgagee. (c) Mortgage by conditional sale-Where, the mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgaged property-on condition that on default of payment of the mortgage-money on a certain date the sale shall become absolute, or on condition that on such payment being made the sale shall become void, or on condition that on such payment being made the buyer shall transfer the property to the seller, the transaction is called a mortgage by conditional sale and the mortgagee a mortgagee by conditional sale: PROVIDED that no such transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage, unless the condition is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale. (d) Usufructuary mortgage-Where the mortgagor delivers possession or expressly or by implication binds himself to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee, and authorizes him to retain such possession until payment of the mortgage-money, and to receive the rents and profits accruing from the property or any part of such rents and profits and to appropriate the same in lieu of interest or in payment of the mortgage-money, or partly in lieu of interest or partly in payment of the mortgage-money, the transaction is called a usufructuary mortgage and the mortgagee a usufructuary mortgagee. (e) English mortgage-Where the mortgagor binds himself to repay the mortgage-money on a certain date, and transfers the mortgaged property absolutely to the mortgagee, but subject to a proviso that he will re-transfer it to the mortgagor upon payment of the mortgage-money as agreed, the transaction is called an English mortgage. (f) Mortgage by deposit of title-deeds-Where a person in any of the following towns, namely, the towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, and in any other town which the State Government concerned may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf, delivers to a creditor or his agent documents of title to immovable property, with intent to create a security thereon, the transaction is called a mortgage by deposit of title- deeds. (g) Anomalous mortgage-A mortgage which is not a simple mortgage, a mortgage by conditional sale, a usufructuary mortgage, an English mortgage or a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds within the meaning of this section is called an anomalous mortgage. 60. (g) Anomalous mortgage-A mortgage which is not a simple mortgage, a mortgage by conditional sale, a usufructuary mortgage, an English mortgage or a mortgage by deposit of title-deeds within the meaning of this section is called an anomalous mortgage. 60. Right of mortgagor to redeem At any time after the principal money has become due, the mortgagor has a right, on payment or tender, at a proper time and place, of the mortgage-money, to require the mortgagee (a) to deliver to the mortgagor the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee, (b) where the mortgagee is in possession of the mortgaged property, to deliver possession thereof to the mortgagor, and (c) at the cost of the mortgagor either to re-transfer the mortgaged property to him or to such third person as he may direct, or to execute and (where the mortgage has been effected by a registered instrument) to have registered an acknowledgment in writing that any right in derogation of his interest transferred to the mortgagee has been extinguished: Provided that the right conferred by this section has not been extinguished by the act of the parties or by decree of a court. xxx xxx xxx 62. Right of usufructuary mortgagor to recover possession In the case of a usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagor has a right to recover possession of the property together with the mortgage-deed and all documents relating to the mortgaged property which are in the possession or power of the mortgagee: (a) where the mortgagee is authorised to pay himself the mortgage-money from the rents and profits of the property, when such money is paid. (b) where the mortgagee is authorised to pay himself from such rents and profits or any part thereof a part only of the mortgage-money, when the term (if any) prescribed for the payment of the mortgage-money has expired and the mortgagor pays or tenders to the mortgagee the mortgage money or the balance thereof or deposits it in court hereinafter provided. xxx xxx xxx Limitation Act: Art. 61 By a mortgagor: (a) To redeem or - Thirty - When the right to - recover possession of - years - redeem or to recover - immovable property - possession accrues - mortgaged. xxx xxx xxx Limitation Act: Art. 61 By a mortgagor: (a) To redeem or - Thirty - When the right to - recover possession of - years - redeem or to recover - immovable property - possession accrues - mortgaged. (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied) A perusal of above provisions shows that Article 61 refers to right to redeem or recover possession. While right of mortgagor to redeem is dealt with under Section 60 of the T.P. Act, the right of usufructuary mortgagor to recover possession is specially dealt with under Section 62. Section 62 is applicable only to usufructuary mortgages and not to any other mortgage. The said right of usufructuary mortgagor though styled as ‘right to recover possession’ is for all purposes, right to redeem and to recover possession. Thus, while in case of any other mortgage, right to redeem is covered under Section 60, in case of usufructuary mortgage, right to recover possession is dealt with under Section 62 and commences on payment of mortgage money out of the usufructs or partly out of the usufructs and partly on payment or deposit by the mortgagor. This distinction in a usufructuary mortgage and any other mortgage is clearly borne out from provisions of Sections 58, 60 and 62 of the T.P. Act read with Article 61 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. Usufructuary mortgage cannot be treated at par with any other mortgage, as doing so will defeat the scheme of Section 62 of the T.P. Act and the equity. This right of the usufructuary mortgagor is not only an equitable right, it has statutory recognition under Section 62 of the T.P. Act. There is no principle of law on which this right can be defeated. Any contrary view, which does not take into account the special right of usufructuary mortgagor under Section 62 of the T.P. Act, has to be held to be erroneous on this ground or has to be limited to a mortgage other than a usufructuary mortgage. Accordingly, we uphold the view taken by the Full Bench that in case of usufructuary mortgage, mere expiry of a period of 30 years from the date of creation of the mortgage does not extinguish the right of the mortgagor under Section 62 of the T.P. Act.” (Emphasis supplied by this Court) 9. Accordingly, we uphold the view taken by the Full Bench that in case of usufructuary mortgage, mere expiry of a period of 30 years from the date of creation of the mortgage does not extinguish the right of the mortgagor under Section 62 of the T.P. Act.” (Emphasis supplied by this Court) 9. Therefore, it is clear that limitation for redeeming usufructuary mortgage starts only on payment of mortgage debt by the mortgagor. Both the Courts below, by assuming that limitation starts on expiry of three years mentioned in the document, erroneously came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. In view of the law settled by the Apex Court in the above mentioned decision, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. The question of law framed, at the time of admission, is answered in favour of the appellants. 10. The Second Appeal stands allowed and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court. The trial Court is directed to number the plaint and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. No costs.