J.M. SHELAT, J.

(1) THIS appeal, founded on a certificate granted by the High court of Madhya Pradesh) involves a question of limitation in regard to a suit for redemption filed by the respondents. The relevant facts from which the said suit arose are as follows :

(2) BY a deed of mortgage, dated December 29, 1899 one Yusufali and his two brothers mortgaged in favour of one Yarmohammad Khan their two shops at Jaora. The mortgage beingusufructuary, the mortgagee was delivered possession of the two shops. The said Yarmohammad died in 1909, whereupon his rights in the mortgaged properties devolved upon his daughter. The daughter also died in 1918 and her interest devolved upon her husband, one Nawab Iftikharali. He was in possession of the shops till 1945 when he purported to sell them to the appellants. On 21/09/1947 the respondents, claiming to be the successors-in-title of the mortgagors, filed the suit from which this appeal arises, against the said Nawab and the appellants, who claimed to be the purchasers of the said two shops from him.

(3) THE Trial court decreed the suit and an appeal against that decree by the appellants was dismissed. The appellants thereupon filed a second appeal in the High court which was allowed by a learned Single Judge who dismissed the respondents suit asoarred by the law of limitation applicable in the then State of Jaora. The respondents took. out a review petition against the said decision on the ground that it suffered from an error apparent on the record in the sense that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider a provision of law embodied in Circular No. 25, dated 1/05/1910 which had the effect of amending the law of limitation then in force in the State and under which the respondents suit was within time. The learned Single Judge who heard the second appeal being no longer on the bench of the High court, the review petition was heard by a division bench. The division bench set aside the decision giving effect to the said circular and holding in the result that the respondents suit was not barred by limitation and restored the decree passed by the Trial court and confirmed by the first Appellate court.

(4) THE Judgment in the : second appeal, heard by the learned Single Judge, shows that busides the question as to limitation, the appellants had also raised the question of adverse possession by them. But, as the learned Single Judge has observed in clear terms, this was not pressed before him. The only question, therefore, he and the division bench which heard the review petition were called upon to decide was on relating to limitation.

(5) THE said deed of mortgage provided that the two shops mortgaged thereunder were to be in possession of the mortgagee. It appears, however, that the shops at the time were let out because the deed itself provides that the interest on the mortgaged sum, which was settled at 12 annas per cent. was to be paid out of the rent fetched by the two shops. The shops fetched a rent of Rs. 40/15/per month out of which the mortgagee was to appropriate Rs.33/12/ per month in lieu of interest and the balance was to be paid by the mortgagee to the mortgagors. In the event of the rent falling short of that amount the mortgagors agreed to make good the shortage. The deed lastly provided: "The time of redemption of mortgage is settled to be that when we pay the entire mortgage money and other miscellaneous expenses in lump sum to the mortgagee and get out shops redeemed". No time for redemption having thus being provided in the deed, the mortgage amount, would be due and payable at once, i.e., from the date of the execution of the mortgage deed.

(6) THERE is no doubt that the State of Jaora had its own law of I imitation promulgated through various circulars and orders. This is clear from Section 12 of the Jaora State Limitation Act promulgated by the Ruler of the State on 14/04/1909. That section recites that prior to the e