Judgement

Appeal (No. 96 of 1930) from a decree of the High Court (February 6, 1929) affirming, with a modification, a decree of the District Judge of Ghazipur (September 4, 1925) which affirmed a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge.

The respondents instituted a suit in 1924 to redeem a mortgage by conditional sale executed in 1864. The question arising upon the appeal was whether the suit could be maintained having regard to a decree for redemption made in 1896 which had not been further proceeded upon.

The facts, and the material provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The High Court (Boys and Ashworth JJ.)3 affirming the lower Courts, held that the suit could be maintained, but modified the decree as to the interest recoverable.

1934. June 22, 25. Hyam for the appellants. The suit was in reality a claim to enforce the decree of 1896, but that could be done only by proceedings in execution Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 47 ; Hari Ravji Chiplunkar v. Shapurji Hormusji (( 1886) L. R 13 I. A. 66.) ; and proceedings of that nature were barred by s. 48 of the Code. Secondly, the suit was barred by s. 11 of the Cod