RAGHUNATH JHA Vs. BABU BIRJNANDON SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff obtained six decrees on hand-notes against defendant No. 1, Ramji Lal Das, and his father, and in execution caused the property in suit an other property to be put to sale, and himself purchased it on April 11th, 1906. Meanwhile, he says, Ramji Lai fabricated three bonds, among them a mortgage-bond purporting to have been executed on February 25th, 1893, in favour of Raghunath Jha, defendant No. 2. The latter obtained an ex parte, decree against Ramji Lal on the basis of this

(2.) mortgage-bond in Suit No. 26 of 1906 and in execution bought the property now in suit. In February 1907 the plaintiff asked the Court to put him in possession of the property in suit, but resistance was offered by Raghunath Jha. The Munsif disposed of the matter by an order dated February 18th, 1907. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on August 8th, 1910, and the reliefs for which he asked were, so far as this appeal is concerned, for declaration that the mortgage bond of February 25th, 1893, the proceedings in Suit No. 26 of 1906 on that bond and the proceedings in execution of the decree were fraudulent and inoperative against him (the plaintiff) and that he (the plaintiff) is entitled to possession of the land in suit. Defendant No. 2 contested the suit and it is he who has preferred this appeal.

(3.) On the merits, the Courts below have decided in favour of the plaintiff, and the only contention in appeal is that the suit is barred by limitation. It is said that the Munsif s order of February 18th, 1907, was an order under Section 335, Civil Procedure Code of 1882, and that the suit is barred by Article 11 of the Limitation Act of 1877, because it was not brought within one year of that order.