Facts :-

The following judgment of the Calcutta High Court gives the history of the case :-

This appeal arises out of execution of a mortgage decree. It was directed in that decree that the mortgaged property should be sold and if the proceeds of the sale were insufficient, the balance should be realized from the other properties and the persons of the judgment-debtors. This application was presented more than 12 years after the date of that decree. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that there were virtually two decrees at that time and that the period of 12 years did not run until what he regards as the second decree under section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, became operative and capable of execution. Accordingly he held that the application was not barred, basing his decision on the case of Chandi Charan Roy v. Ambika Charan Dutt [1904] 31. Cal. 792.

The judgment-debtor appeals, and it is argued that the execution is barred. It appears to us that this contention must succeed. The case cited by the learned Subordinate Judge is not an authority for the holding that the decree-holder, who has obtained a decree such as given in this case has 12 years for proceeding ag