IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 8994 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.37997 of 2013)
BIR SINGH Appellant(s)
RAM KANWAR SINGH(D) TH. LRS & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant claims through the original mortgagee under
the usufructuary mortgage. The appellant-mortgagee filed a
suit claiming ownership of the property in-question by
prescription and also sought for permanent injunction in favour
of the appellant. The trial court decreed the suit and granted
permanent injunction. On appeal, the first appellate court
partly allowed the appeal holding that the appellant, claiming
through the mortgagee, cannot claim right to ownership over the
property in-question. However, the first appellate court
affirmed the permanent injunction in favour of the appellant in
the capacity of the appellant as a mortgagee. The same view
was affirmed by the High Court. However, the High Court
granted liberty to the respondents to work out their remedy for
right to redemption in separate proceedings. While doing so
the High Court affirmed the grant of injunction in favour of
3. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the
appellant, being the mortgagee, can claim grant of ownership by
contending that the right of morgagor has been foreclosed.
4. This issue is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court
in Singh Ram (Dead) Thr. Legal Representatives v. Sheo Ram and
Others, (2014) 9 SCC 185 where this Court held that “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”.
5. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed.
AUGUST 28, 2018.