-
by Admin
18 February 2026 2:25 PM
Law Does Not Permit a Litigant to Blow Hot and Cold — Plaintiffs Denied the Mortgage in Their Own Pleadings, Redemption Claim Is Thus Legally Unsustainable — In a judgment highlighting the perils of inconsistent pleadings and the strict boundaries of mortgage law, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a second appeal seeking redemption of an oral mortgage allegedly created in 1926, holding that the plaintiffs had themselves destroyed the foundation of their case by explicitly denying the existence of any mortgage in their suit.
Justice Nidhi Gupta made it clear: “Plaintiffs cannot seek relief of redemption of a mortgage which they have verily denied — even in their amended replication. Law does not permit approbation and reprobation.”
From Denial to Redemption: A Pleading Contradiction That Proved Fatal
The case stemmed from agricultural land measuring 166 Kanals and 14 Marlas, originally held by Mam Chand and Teju, whose successors — the present appellants — claimed ownership. The dispute centered around an oral mortgage created in 1926 by Mam Chand for ₹7,000, recorded by mutation entry No. 217 in 1927, allegedly transferring possession to mortgagee Deoti Ram.
When co-owner Teju died in 1978, his heirs filed a civil suit in 1983, not for redemption — but to declare the land unencumbered, to block the defendants’ possession, and to assert sole title. In fact, the plaintiffs categorically pleaded: “No part of the suit land has been mortgaged… and the entry in the revenue record is incorrect and without legal basis.”
But in 1987, by an amendment in their replication, the plaintiffs attempted a pivot — arguing that if any mortgage existed, it was usufructuary and therefore not time-barred.
The Court found this late-stage switch legally unacceptable: “Even while pleading this, plaintiffs continued to deny the mortgage. Their contradictory stance renders the redemption claim untenable.”
Usufructuary Mortgage Plea Rejected — No Exclusive Possession
The plaintiffs relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sheo Ram v. Singh Ram, where a usufructuary mortgage was held to be redeemable even decades later. But the High Court distinguished the present case: “A usufructuary mortgage requires exclusive possession with the mortgagee. Here, the courts below found possession was joint — not exclusive — and the plaintiffs failed to rebut this.”
Justice Gupta pointed to consistent findings by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court:
• That the mortgage was oral and possession was not exclusively with the mortgagee;
• That mutation entries supported the defendants’ version;
• That the plaintiffs’ conduct and pleadings disqualified them from asserting redemption.
Limitation Begins with the Mortgage — Not With Its Recognition
The plaintiffs further argued that limitation for redemption had not started as they hadn’t “acknowledged” the mortgage. But the Court reaffirmed the law laid down in Sampuran Singh v. Niranjan Kaur:
“In oral mortgages, limitation runs from the date of mortgage itself. Redemption rights, unless backed by a registered document or clear possession transfer, cannot survive endlessly.”
Since the mortgage dated back to 1926 and the suit was filed only in 1983, it was hopelessly barred, and no equitable relief could be claimed after such delay.
Conclusion
Dismissing the second appeal, the Court underscored that the plaintiffs had:
• Denied the existence of the mortgage in their suit;
• Failed to plead redemption in their original cause;
• Produced no proof of exclusive possession or basis for invoking Article 61(a) of the Limitation Act.
“Findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless perverse — and in this case, they are entirely well-reasoned and sound.”
The Court closed the door on a claim that had staggered through four decades of litigation, firmly stating that redemption cannot arise from contradiction.
Date of Decision: 21 April 2025
