PUSHKAR PRASAD Vs. SURAJ PRASAD MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by defendant 1 who is aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the Courts below by which they have decreed the mortgage suit against him. The question for decision is whether the suit was barred by limitation as against the appellant.

(2.) The plaintiff sought to enforce a mortgage bond dated 12-9-1927, of which the due date of repayment was 29-9-1928. The suit was filed on 30-9-1940, as 29 of September, was a Sunday. The plaintiff impleaded besides the family of the mortgagors also defendant 9 as a subsequent transferee who filed a written statement to the effect that the property which he has purchased was in the possession of the appellant a3 a result of some execution also held in realisation of a rent decree. Pushkar Prasad, defendant 10, the appellant before this Court, was accordingly impleaded as a defendant 10 by a petition filed on 8-2-1941. It would be noticed that on that date the mortgage suit against the appellant had become barred by limitation.

(3.) Defendant 10, after he was served with summons, filed a written statement in which inter alia he contended that the suit against him was barred by limitation. The Courts below have concurrently overruled this contention upon their view that as the plaintiff had no knowledge of the transfer in favour of the appellant before 18-2-1941, the suit was within time even as against the said defendant-appellant. Hence the second appeal to this Court.