Judgment - Gajendragadkar, J.

1. This appeal has been referred to a Division Bench by Dixit J. because) as he has pointed out in his referring judgment, the question of limitation which falls to be considered in this appeal is of some importance. That question arises in this way. A decree in a mortgage suit was passed under Section 15B, Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act, on 13-3-1926. This decree made the decretal amount payable by installments and it provided that in case of any single default the decree-holder was entitled to recover the whole of the decretal amount by sale of the mortgaged property. Under the decree the last instalment was payable in 1932. The decree-holder filed several darkhasts between 1927 and 1938 and in fact the mortgaged property was sold in 1935. The decretal amount was still not satisfied and the decree-holder wanted to proceed against the surety, who was defendant 3 in the mortgage suit. With that object he filed the present darkhast in 1945 and he claimed to recover the balance from the surety on the ground that, like the mortgagor, the surety himself had been made personally liable to pay the balance which remained due after the sale proceeds from the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document