INDRA NARAIN SHAO Vs. DIJABAR SAMANTA; RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit upon a mortgage-bond. Various defences were raised in the case.

(2.) The Courts below have found in favour of the plaintiff upon all points, except that the lower Appellate Court has held that the suit is not governed by Article 132 Schedule II of the Limitation Act and that as it was instituted more than 6 years after the due date of payment, it was barred by limitation.

(3.) The mortgagor borrowed a certain quantity of paddy from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the paddy with interest at a certain rate mentioned in the bond. It is mentioned in the bond that the paddy was sold for Rs. 192. Then the stipulation in the bond is as follows: "If I do not repay the paddy within the period aforesaid, then on the expiry of the aforesaid period you will be entitled to recover the price of paddy with interest thereon at the rate of 1 1/2 pice per rupee per month, together with costs of Court by attachment and sale of the aforesaid lands (together with the crops thereon) which are given in mortgage for the repayment thereof."