SHIDLINGAVA SADEPPA PELARAD Vs. RAJAVA TANESAHEB JAYALGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs-respondents are entitled to accounts under Section 15(b) of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act from defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, appellants.

(2.) The land in suit belonged to one Bhagojappa. In 1882 he mortgaged it with possession to Santangava father of Renava, Exhibit 101. In 1893 the mortgagor sold the equity of redemption to Lalsaheb, Exhibit 99. In 1902 Lalsaheb died leaving a brother Davalsaheb. Defendant No, 4, Yamanava, claims to be Lalsaheb's widow and is the mother of Rajava and Balesaheb, the plaintiffs. In 1905 defendant No. 4, Yamanava, purporting to act as the guardian of plaintiff No. 2, and Lalsaheb's brother Davalsaheb sold the equity of redemption to one Shivabaaappa the predecessor-intitle of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, appellants, and on October 10, 1907, Shivabasappa redeemed the mortgage from the heirs of the original mortgagee Santangava. Plaintiff No. 2 was born on September 9, 1902. On December 20, 1924, the two plaintiffs claiming to be the sons of Lalsaheb brought the present suit for accounts of the mortgage under the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act and in the alternative for seven-eighths share in the property by partition. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the heirs of Shivabasappa. Defendant No. 4, Yamanava, is the mother of the plaintiffs, and defendant No. 5, Bhimappa, is the successor-in-title of the original mortgagee, Santangava Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 denied that defendant No. 4 was the wedded wife of Lalsaheb or that the plaintiffs were his legitimate sons. They also raised the plea that the suit as framed would not lie and an issue of limitation.

(3.) The trial Court held on the first issue that defendant No. 4 was the lawful wife and that plaintiff No. 2 the legitimate son of Lalsaheb. It found on the issue of limitation that the suit was barred either under Art. 134 or 144 of the second schedule of the Indian Limitation Act and dismissed the suit. In appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court held that the suit was one for accounts and therefore fell under Art. 120, or in the alternative under Article 148, and was, therefore, within time. It, therefore, reversed the decree of the trial Court and remanded the suit for accounts under Section 15(b) of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 appeals.