JUDGMENT - Gajendragadkar, J.

1. This appeal raises an interesting question as to limitation. In the suit from which the appeal arises the plaintiff had claimed accounts of the mortgage against defendant 1 and he had asked for a decree for redemption and possession of the property which is the subject-matter of the mortgage. The trial Court had held that the suit was barred by limitation. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff a contrary view has bean taken, with the result that the decree of dismissal passed by the trial Court has been set aside and the plaintiffs suit has been remanded to the trial Court for taking accounts and for passing the usual preliminary redemption decree. It is this order which is challenged before us by Mr. Patwardhan on behalf of defendant 2.

2. It appears that Narhari and Aba, who were undivided brothers, owned five pieces of land. On l-5-1920, they executed a simple mortgage in respect of three fields, to Rupchand, who is defendant 1, for Rs. 1,300. We are concerned with these three fields in the present appeal. On 8-7-1922, the two brothers mortgaged the said three fields and two more in sample mortgage to Umabai for Rs. 1,500. Umabai brought a suit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document