Legal Review and Analysis of Dalip Singh D Thr LRs & Ors vs Sawan Singh D Thr LRs & Ors 2025 INSC 1498
Case Synopsis
Dalip Singh (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors. vs. Sawan Singh (D) Thr. LRs. & Ors. (2025 INSC 1498)
Synopsis: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the cardinal principle that in a usufructuary mortgage, the mortgagor's right to redeem remains suspended in perpetuity, and the limitation period to challenge redemption commences only upon the mortgagor's tender of the mortgage debt, thereby safeguarding the equitable right of redemption from being extinguished by mere lapse of time.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name:
Citation: 2025 INSC 1498
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Hon’ble Ms. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
Date: November 12, 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment primarily interprets and applies the following legal provisions:
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Deals with the rights and liabilities of a usufructuary mortgagee.
Article 61(a) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963: Prescribes the period of limitation for a suit by a mortgagee to recover possession of immovable property mortgaged.
The Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act, 1913: The statute under which the original redemption application was filed before the Collector.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Facts of the Case
The ancestors of the respondents (original defendants) had mortgaged a property to the ancestors of the appellants (original plaintiffs) via a usufructuary mortgage. In 1975, the respondents applied for redemption before the Collector under the 1913 Act, which was allowed. The appellants, challenging this order, filed a civil suit (No. 291 of 1975). The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, holding the redemption application was barred by limitation. This decree was upheld by the First Appellate Court. The High Court, in Regular Second Appeal, initially and then upon remand, reversed the lower courts. It held the right to redeem was not time-barred, relying on the principle that in a usufructuary mortgage with no fixed period, the cause of action for redemption arises only when the mortgagor pays or tenders the mortgage money. The appellants (mortgagees) appealed to the Supreme Court against this restoration of the Collector's redemption order.
Issues Before the Court
The core legal issue was: In a usufructuary mortgage where no time is fixed for repayment, from which date does the limitation period for filing a suit for redemption (or for challenging redemption) begin to run?
Ratio Decidendi (Court's Reasoning)
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment. The Court's reasoning was anchored in the settled law expounded by a three-judge Bench in Singh Ram (D) Thr. LRs. vs. Sheo Ram & Ors. (2014) 9 SCC 185. The ratio applied is as follows:
For a usufructuary mortgage where the mortgagee is placed in possession and is entitled to receive rents and profits in lieu of interest or principal, the limitation period for redemption does not run from the date of the mortgage deed.
As per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the right to redeem arises, and thus limitation under Article 61(a) of the Limitation Act begins, only from the date when the mortgagor pays or tenders the mortgage money to the mortgagee, or deposits it in court.
Consequently, the mere lapse of a long period since the creation of the mortgage does not, by itself, extinguish the mortgagor's equitable right of redemption. Until such payment or tender is made, the mortgagee's right to seek a declaration of absolute title remains unaccrued, and any suit based on the expiry of limitation is premature.
4. Core Principle of the Judgment
Title: The Perpetual Equity of Redemption: Limitation in Usufructuary Mortgages
Main Issue and Judgment's Core
The judgment addresses the critical interplay between the mortgagor's equitable right to redeem and the law of limitation in the context of usufructuary mortgages. The core issue was to correctly identify the terminus a quo (starting point) for the limitation period.
The Supreme Court addressed this by reaffirming and applying the doctrine that a usufructuary mortgage, by its nature, keeps the right to redeem alive until a specific event occurs. The Court categorically rejected the argument that limitation begins from the mortgage date. Instead, it solidified the principle that the clock starts ticking only upon the mortgagor's affirmative act of offering repayment. This interpretation protects the mortgagor's fundamental right to reclaim their property and prevents mortgagees from gaining title by mere passage of time where they continue to enjoy the usufruct.
In-Depth Analysis
This judgment is a definitive application of precedent to settle a recurring dispute. By following the three-judge bench decision in Singh Ram, the Court ensured uniformity and certainty in the law. The analysis underscores the unique character of a usufructuary mortgage as distinct from other mortgage types. The mortgagee's possession and enjoyment of the profits are considered sufficient compensation, thereby suspending the need for the mortgagor to take active steps to redeem. The limitation law is harmoniously construed with the Transfer of Property Act to mean that the "cause of action" for the mortgagee to sue for possession (or to resist redemption) is incomplete until the mortgagor initiates the redemption process by tendering payment. This ruling prevents the unfair enrichment of the mortgagee and upholds the principle that a mortgage is always a security, not a mechanism for transfer of ownership.
5. Final Outcome
The Supreme Court
Dismissed the civil appeal filed by the appellants (the mortgagees).
Affirmed the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated January 25, 2010.
Consequently, upheld the order of the Collector dated September 17, 1975, which allowed the redemption of the mortgaged property in favor of the respondents (the mortgagors).
Vacated any interim order of stay.
Directed each party to bear its own costs.
6. MCQ Questions Based on the Judgment
Question 1: According to the Supreme Court in Dalip Singh vs. Sawan Singh (2025 INSC 1498), when does the period of limitation begin to run for a suit concerning the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage where no time is fixed for repayment?
A) From the date of execution of the mortgage deed.
B) From the date the mortgagee takes possession of the property.
C) From the date the mortgagor pays or tenders the mortgage money to the mortgagee.
D) From the date 30 years after the mortgage is created.
Question 2: In the aforementioned case, which legal principle from a three-judge bench precedent was pivotal in deciding the outcome?
A) That a mortgagee becomes the absolute owner after 60 years.
B) That the right of redemption is extinguished if not exercised within 30 years of the mortgage.
C) That in a usufructuary mortgage, limitation does not run from the mortgage date but from the date of payment/tender by the mortgagor.
D) That the Collector has no jurisdiction to order redemption.
Blog Posts
