KRISHNAJI SAKHARAM DESHPANDE Vs. KASHIM VALAD MOHIDINSAHEB HAVALDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are these: On the 6th of May 1893 the present defendant s father passed a possessory mortgage for. Rs. 2,000 in favour of the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title. The mortgage related to Vatan property. On the 8th of April 1901, the defendant s father died. The present defendant filed Suit No. 106 of 1913 to recover possession of the land and in the alternative for redemption of ,the mortgage. In April 1914, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs in that suit awarding them possession with mesne profits for three years. The present suit was filed by the heirs of the mortgagee to recover Rs. 3,000 (Rs, 2,000 as principal and Rs. 1,000. as interest), on the 2nd of June 1914.

(2.) The trial Court held that the money claim was barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. In appeal the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the possession was in fact taken from the plaintiffs in 1914, that under the covenant the cause of action arose at the date of dispossession, and that the claim was within time. In the result the plaintiffs claim was allowed.

(3.) The defendant has appealed to this Court and it is urged in support of the appeal that the plaintiffs claim Is time-barred and that the point relied upon by the plaintiffs relating to the covenant in the deed is res judicata in virtue of the decision in Suit No. 106 of 1913.