Venkataramaiya, C.J.—This appeal has been referred to a Full Bench by the Division Bench before which it was posted for hearing as doubt was felt about the correctness of the view expressed in 47 Mys HCR 337 (A),. on the question of limitation. It was held in that case

"if therefore at the time when the puisne mortgagee sues to enforce the first mortgage by virtue of subrogation a suit by the first mortgagee is barred by time, the puisne mortgagee's suit is equally barred by time. This is the position which is accepted by the Calcutta, Madras and Patna rulings ..... Limitation counts from the date on which the money under the first mortgage became due and not from the date on which the subsequent mortgagee paid it off whether the money paid was still due under the mortgage or under a decree obtained on that mortgage".

Applying this principle, the lower Court has dismissed a suit filed by a person in the position of a co-mortgagor for recovery of amounts paid by him in excess of his liability as the interval between the due date for payment under the mort.-gage deed and the suit was more than 12 years although the suit was filed within that period from the date of payment.

2.