BABULAL SUKUL Vs. KAMALADUT SUKUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question involved in these appeals is whether the suit of the plaintiffs for redemption is barred by limitation. THE argument advanced on behalf of the defendants-appellants is that Article 134 of the Limitation Act applied to this case and, since the suit was brought more than 12 years from the date of sale, that is, 8-7-1879, the bar of limitation applied. THE contrary view point was put forward by the learned Government advocate on behalf of the respondents. It was argued by him that the case is governed by Article 148 of the Limitation Act. It was pointed out that the date of the last assignment (Exhibit 5) is 8-2-1885, and in that document the zerpeshgi right of the mortgagor was distinctly acknowledged, and if that date is the starting point of limitation, the suit is still within the time prescribed by Article 148 of the Limitation Act. In our opinion, the proper Article to apply to this case is not Article 134, but Article 148 of the Limitation Act. Article 134 is in the following terms:

(2.) IN the present case it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the document dated 8-7-1879, was an absolute sale by Lachuman of the property in dispute to Ramlagan Lal. A translation of this document was produced before us by learned Counsel for the appellants in the course of hearing. We have looked into the translation and we are satisfied that what Lachuman purported to transfer was not an absolute right in the property free of mortgage. On the contrary, there was an express acknowledgment of the mortgages made by Kamladatt and Gangadhar Dutt on 29-8-1867 and 21-1-1868. There is also a recital in the last paragraph of the document that the vendee has right to take out execution according to the prevailing Act of 1806 and the vended property foreclosed and vested in him. The relevant portion of the translation is as follows: