MANIK SADASHIV Vs. KRISHNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question that arises in this appeal is one of limitation. The relevant facts are as follows: On 18-5-1933 one Anant for himself and as the guardian of his minor son mortgaged to one Shrikrishna Survey Nos. 38 and 116/1 for Rs. 700/ -. The mortgage amount was payable by seven annual instalments, the first one being payable on 15-1-1934. On 23-7-1940 the mortgagors sold to the plaintiffs their equity of redemption in respect of 3 acres and 20 gunthas out of survey-No. 38, now numbered as survey No. 38/2, and the whole of survey No. 116/1 for Rs. 1400/ -. Out of the said consideration, Rs. 650/- were paid in cash and the remaining Rs. 750/- were to be paid by the plaintiffs to the above-said mortgagee. The sale deed recites that the mortgagee had agreed to settle his dues for Rs. 750. The original defendant Kisan was a co-occupant in survey No. 116, he being the owner of survey No. 116/2. Kisan the present defendant filed a suit for pre-emption against the plaintiffs in respect of survey No. 116/1, A pre-emption decree was passed in favour of Kisan the present defendant on 30-6-1942; he was allowed pre-emption and possession on depositing Rs. 315/-subject, however, to the abovesaid mortgage. On 16-4-1913 the plaintiffs paid Rs. 825/- to the mortgagee Shrikrishna and redeemed the whole mortgage. On 13-4-1955 the plaintiffs filed the present suit for contribution. In the plaint, after setting out the above mentioned facts, the plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to receive contribution and if the defendant, i. e Kisan, fails to pay the amount due from him by way of contribution, the amount should be recovered by enforcing the charge, which, the plaintiffs have under Section 100 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit on various grounds. So far as this appeal is concerned, the only important contention is that the suit is barred by limitation.

(3.) BOTH the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court have held that the present suit is barred by limitation under Article 132 of the Limitation Act, the starting point of limitation being the date on which the mortgage amount became payable. It is against this decision that the present second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.