Sampuran Singh v. Niranjan Kaur (Smt.)

Sampuran Singh v. Niranjan Kaur (Smt.), AIR 1999 SC 1047, is a significant judgement by the Supreme Court of India that deals with the limitation period for redemption of a mortgage under the Limitation Act, 1963. The case provides clarity on several key legal concepts related to mortgage law, limitation, and the role of oral agreements in property law. 

The case highlights how the right to redeem a mortgage works in relation to the statutory limitation and the impact of acknowledgement of liability on the limitation period.

Background of the Sampuran Singh v. Niranjan Kaur (Smt.) Case

The case Sampuran Singh v. Niranjan Kaur (Smt.) revolves around a dispute over the redemption of an oral mortgage executed in the year 1893. The appellants, Sampuran Singh and others, had filed a suit for possession of the mortgaged land by redeeming the mortgage for the sum of ₹ 53. However, the respondents, Niranjan Kaur and others, opposed this claim on the grounds that the suit was barred by the period of limitation, which they argued began when the oral mortgage was executed in 1893.

The case came before the Supreme Court after several rounds of litigation, where the Trial Court had initially ruled in favour of the appellants, stating that the limitation period started only from 1960, when the mortgagee’s rights were transferred to the respondents. However, the First Appellate Court and the High Court dismissed the appellants’ claims, stating that the suit was barred by limitation because it was filed after the statutory limitation period.

The central issue in this case was whether the suit for redemption was filed within the prescribed period, and whether the mortgage was valid and could be redeemed after such a long period.

Key Legal Issues

1. The Limitation Period for Redemption of a Mortgage: The primary issue in the case was whether the Limitation Act, 1963 bars the appellants from redeeming the mortgage after such a long period. According to Section 27 of the Limitation Act, a suit for redemption of an ordinary mortgage must be filed within 60 years from the date the mortgage was executed. The appellants claimed that the limitation period for redemption started only in 1960, when the mortgage rights were transferred by the original mortgagee to the respondents.
2. Effect of Acknowledgement of Liability: The second issue involved the acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The appellants argued that the limitation period should be extended because the original mortgagee acknowledged the mortgage in 1960 when he transferred his rights to the respondents. This acknowledgement, according to the appellants, restarted the limitation period from that date.
3. Validity of Oral Mortgage:  The case also raised the question of whether an oral mortgage executed in 1893 remained valid and enforceable under the law, and whether the right to redeem such a mortgage could still be claimed after such a long period.

The Court’s Analysis in Sampuran Singh v. Niranjan Kaur (Smt.)

Right of Redemption and Limitation

The Supreme Court first clarified the nature of the right of redemption. It stated that the right to redeem a mortgage accrues from the date of execution of the mortgage, unless there is a specific restriction in the mortgage deed itself. In the absence of such a restriction, the mortgagor has the right to redeem the mortgage at any time, whether immediately after execution or later. This right remains intact unless it is expressly extinguished by the terms of the mortgage.

However, the Court also pointed out that the Limitation Act, 1963 imposes a specific period within which this right can be exercised. Under Section 27, a mortgagor must file a suit for redemption within 60 years from the date of execution of the mortgage. If the suit is not filed within this period, the right to redeem becomes extinguished.

In this case, the mortgage was executed in 1893, and the appellants filed the suit for redemption in 1980. The Court held that since the mortgage was created in 1893, the limitation period for filing a suit for redemption started from that date. The appellants’ suit, therefore, was barred by limitation as it was filed more than 60 years after the mortgage was executed.

Acknowledgement of Liability and Limitation

The appellants also contended that the limitation period should be restarted from 1960, when the mortgagee transferred the mortgage rights to the respondents. They argued that the acknowledgement of the mortgage by the original mortgagee in 1960 should trigger a fresh limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

Section 18 of the Limitation Act allows a fresh period of limitation to be computed from the date of written acknowledgement of liability, provided that the acknowledgement is signed before the expiration of the original limitation period. However, the Court noted that an acknowledgement must be a written acknowledgement of liability. In this case, the Court found that the transfer of rights in 1960 was not an acknowledgement of liability, but rather a mere conveyance of mortgage rights. Therefore, the Court held that Section 18 did not apply in this case, and the limitation period could not be restarted from 1960.

Oral Mortgage Validity

The Court also dealt with the question of the validity of the oral mortgage. It reaffirmed the established principle that an oral mortgage is valid under Indian law. Section 58(b) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 recognises that a mortgage may be effected by oral agreement, and such mortgages are enforceable under the law. Therefore, the mortgage executed in 1893 was valid, and the appellants could have sought redemption at any time within the prescribed limitation period.

Court’s Conclusion in Sampuran Singh v. Niranjan Kaur (Smt.)

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, which dismissed the appellants’ suit as barred by limitation. The Court ruled that the right to redeem the mortgage could not be exercised after the expiration of the statutory 60-year period, and the appellants’ suit filed in 1980 was beyond this period. The Court also affirmed that the acknowledgement of the mortgage in 1960 did not restart the limitation period because it did not constitute a written acknowledgement of liability, as required by Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion

Sampuran Singh v. Niranjan Kaur (Smt.) is a landmark decision that underscores the need for mortgagors to act within the prescribed period of limitation to redeem a mortgage. The case reiterates that the limitation period for filing a suit for redemption is 60 years from the date of the mortgage, regardless of the length of time the mortgagee remains in possession. It also clarifies the role of acknowledgement of liability under the Limitation Act and highlights the continued validity of oral mortgages in India.

This case serves as a reminder that in property disputes, especially involving mortgages, timely action is crucial. Litigants must be aware of the statutory limitation periods and ensure that their claims are filed within the prescribed time to avoid losing their rights due to the expiry ofthe limitation.