(1.) In our judgment the period of limitation for a suit for sale under the instrument id question in the present case is that prescribed by Art. 147 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act.
(2.) In Ramachandra Rayaguru V/s. Modhu Padhi I.L.R. 21 Mad. 326, Shephard, J., dealt with the case upon the supposition that the instrument then before the Court was a charge not amounting to a mortgage and held that Art. 132, which relates to suits to enforce by judicial sale payment of money charged on immoveable property, applied.
(3.) In the present case it is quite clear that the instrument is a mortgage. In the case referred to, Subrahmania Ayyar, J., was of opinion that the article applicable was Art. 132, on the ground that the words "by a mortgagee for foreclosure or sale in Art. 147" referred only to a suit for foreclosure or sale in the alternative. We do not think this is the right construction of the article. For the reasons stated in the order of reference which we substantially adopt, we think the article applies to a suit by a mortgagee whether the suit is one for foreclosure (see Secs.86 and 87 and paragraph 2 of Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act), or one for sale (see paragraph 1 of Section 88 and Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act), and, in the former case, whether the prayer in the plaint is for foreclosure alone, or is coupled with a prayer in the alternative for sale in lieu of a decree for foreclosure.