GULAM ABBAS Vs. MULLA ABDUL KADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, founded on a certificate granted by the High court of Madhya Pradesh) involves a question of limitation in regard to a suit for redemption filed by the respondents. The relevant facts from which the said suit arose are as follows :

(2.) By a deed of mortgage, dated December 29, 1899 one Yusufali and his two brothers mortgaged in favour of one Yarmohammad Khan their two shops at Jaora. The mortgage beingusufructuary, the mortgagee was delivered possession of the two shops. The said Yarmohammad died in 1909, whereupon his rights in the mortgaged properties devolved upon his daughter. The daughter also died in 1918 and her interest devolved upon her husband, one Nawab Iftikharali. He was in possession of the shops till 1945 when he purported to sell them to the appellants. On 21/09/1947 the respondents, claiming to be the successors-in-title of the mortgagors, filed the suit from which this appeal arises, against the said Nawab and the appellants, who claimed to be the purchasers of the said two shops from him.

(3.) The Trial court decreed the suit and an appeal against that decree by the appellants was dismissed. The appellants thereupon filed a second appeal in the High court which was allowed by a learned Single Judge who dismissed the respondents' suit aboard by the law of limitation applicable in the then State of Jaora. The respondents took. out a review petition against the said decision on the ground that it suffered from an error apparent on the record in the sense that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider a provision of law embodied in Circular No. 25, dated 1/05/1910 which had the effect of amending the law of limitation then in force in the State and under which the respondents' suit was within time. The learned Single Judge who heard the second appeal being no longer on the bench of the High court, the review petition was heard by a division bench. The division bench set aside the decision giving effect to the said circular and holding in the result that the respondents' suit was not barred by limitation and restored the decree passed by the Trial court and confirmed by the first Appellate court.