LAXMICHAND Vs. STATE BANK OF INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Mehta, counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Court erred in coming to conclusion that the present suit filed by the appellant was time barred though he recorded the finding in favour of the appellant that the house which was mortgaged in favour of the respondent/Bank by Kanahiyalal, happened to be an ancestral house in which the appellant and the respondent Kanahiyalal, his brother Surajmal and their mother Mulibai were having 1/4th share each. Shri Mehta further submitted while substantiating his arguments that the learned trial Court committed the error of coming to conclusion that period of limitation started running against the present appellant from the date when the preliminary decree was passed in Civil Suit No. 25 -A/74 in which the decree was passed in favour of respondent No. 1 against Kanahiyalal.

(2.) SHRI Jain appearing for respondent No. 1 submitted that there is no error whatsoever committed by the trial Court on the point which has been argued by Shri Mehta. He submitted that when the preliminary decree was passed, the present appellant had the knowledge of passing of such decree because he had submitted an application for getting the certified copy of that.

(3.) I find force in the submission which has been advanced by Shri Mehta on this point for the reasons hereunder.