AJIT SINGH Vs. HEM RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal brought by the plaintiffs against an appellate decree of the Additional district Judge, Amritsar, confirming the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for possession.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that Shankar Singh, tile father of the plaintiffs; contracted several debts and one of them was due to Hem Raj. defendant 1. On 29-3-1934 Hem Raj obtained an ex parte decree for Rs. 800/- against Shankar Singh and in execution of his decree the land in dispute was sold for RS. 1,000/- on 4-10-1937 subject to a mortgage of Rs. 2,100/ -. The sale certificate was obtained on 14-1-1938 and the present suit was brought alleging that the original debt on the basis of which the ex parte decree was obtained was without consideration and legal necessity and was not binding upon the plaintiffs. It was also alleged that as a matter of fact no debt was due and the decree was obtained by fraud and the sole was vitiated by the fact that it was sold for a low price, and Saht Ram defendant 2 who was a member of the joint family with Hem Raj and purchased it without the Court's permission. The defendants denied the correctness of the allegations and pleaded limitation as a bar which plea was sustained by both the Courts below, and that is the only point now before me.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Courts below the suit is governed by Article 12 (a), Limitation Act which funs as under: