Suit for redemption of mortgage - Filed by respondent against third parties after 58 years - It was neither averred nor proved in plaint that predecessor of respondent did not have knowledge of transactions relating to property prior to12 years of filing of suit - Suit held was barred by limitation.

Citation 

AIR 2000 SUPREME COURT 3146

SUPREME COURT

(From : Allahabad)

V. N. KHARE , J. and S. N. VARIAVA , J.

Civil Appeal No. 3673 of 1982, D/- 12 - 9 - 2000

Smt. Dilboo (dead) by L.Rs. and others Appellants v. Smt. Dhanraji (dead) and others Respondents.

(A)Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), S.100 - Question of fact - Question, whether the predecessors-in- title were heirs of mortgagor - Is purely a question of fact - Concurrent findings by trial Court and appellate Court that it was not proved that predecessors-in-title of respondent were

related to mortgagor - It was also found that mere statements in documents prepared by concerned/interested parties cannot establish proof of facts stated therein - Further parties who could establish relationship were available but had chosen not to step into witness box -

Thus respondent acquired no title and had no right to claim redemption - In circumstances reappreciation of evidence by High Court in appeal and arriving at contrary conclusion would not only be error in law but also on facts.

 (Paras 16 , 17) 

(B)Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art.148, Art.134 - Suit for redemption of mortgage - Filed by respondent against third parties after 58 years - It was neither averred nor proved in plaint that predecessor of respondent did not have knowledge of transactions relating to property prior to

12 years of filing of suit - Suit held was barred by limitation - Further suit would also be barred as interest in excess of right of mortgagee was created in favour of third parties.