Judgement

APPEAL from a decree of the High Court (May 8, 1889) reversing a decree of the Sub-Judge of Gya (Feb. 23, 1888).

The question in appeal was, Is the Appellants suit to have the Defendant, Run Bahadoor, declared liable to satisfy a decree on a bond, dated the 1st of March, 1872, executed by Ranee Asmedh Koer, barred either by limitation or as res judicata?

The facts are stated in the judgment of their Lordships.

Cowie, Q.C., and C. W. Arathoon, for the Appellant, contended, first, that the suit was not barred by limitation. The bond debt was a charge on the immoveable estate, Rajah Run Bahadoor having specifically undertaken to pay it " out of the profits of the said properties." Reference was made to Act XV. of 1877, arts. 10, 122, 132. The suit fell under art. 132, and not under art. 116 or any article in Part VII. giving six years. Run Bahadoor s liability resulted from his agreement with Rani Asmedh, made upon his taking over the estate on which it was or became charged within the meaning of art. 132. Article 122 applied in view of the suit being based on the decree of the High Court against the Ranee, dated the 2nd of July, 1878. With regard to res judicata, some part