JUDGMENT - Gajendragadkar, J.

1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Mr. Justice shah for the reason that it raises an important question of limitation. The question is whether the plaintiffs right to recover the mortgage amount from the successor-in-title of the mortgagor is barred under Art. 132, Limitation Act. This point has been answered against the plaintiffs by the Courts below relying upon the judgment of Mr. Justice Lokur in -- Dnyanoba Gangaram v. Dattoba Balappa, AIR 1947 Bom 152 (A). When this appeal was argued before Mr. Justice Shah, it was urged before Him that the judgment of Mr. Justice Lokur should be reconsidered in view of the fact that it was apparently inconsistent with the decision of the Privy Council in -- Lasa Din v. Gulab Kunwar, AIR 1932 PC 207 (BJ. That is why Mr. Justice Shah has sent this matter to a Division Bench for disposal.

2. The facts on which the point of limitation arises can be very briefly stated at the outset. The property in suit originally belonged to one Shidra-mappa, who died on 31-12-1915. After his death the title to this property vested in Balappa, who was then a minor. Gurushiddawa, who was act ing as the de facto gu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document