A mistaken advice of a lawyer may, in the circumstances of a particular case, give rise to sufficient cause within the meaning of Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, though there is no such general doctrine which saves litigants from the results of wrong advice.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This appeal by the plaintiff is from the judgment and decree dated 19-6-1952, of Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad Sinha, Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Muzaffarpur, dismissing his suit for possession.

2. Put briefly, the material facts, for the decision of the present appeal, are these:

3. In the Survey rerord-of-rights, as will appear from the Khatian of village Ghosaut (Exhibit 27), in respect of khata 155, which is the Khata in suit, one Paspat Lal Jha, son of Suba Sant Lal Jha, ancestor of defendants fourth party, is recorded. The landlords, who are defendants second party to the suit brought a rent suit in 1936--Rent Suit No. 3812 of 1936 against defendants third party and obtained a decree for arrears of rent against them on 18-11-1936. In execution of the said decree in Execution Case No. 605 ot 1937, the disputed khata 155 with an area of 15 bighas 4 kathas 10 dhurs and 14 dhurkis was sold on the 15th November, 1937, and purchased for Rs. 210.00 by defendants 1st party, as will appear from the certificate of sale Exhibit A. The auction purchasers, namely, the defendants 1st party, got delivery of possession through court on the 25th April, 1938, as will appear from the writ of delivery of possession and the receipt of receiving possession and the peons report which are Exhibit H series.

4. On 14-11-1949, the plaintiff instituted the present suit in the court of the Munsif, 1st court, Muzaffarpur, giving the valuation of the suit properties at Rs. 210.00 the amount for which the disputed khata had been sold and purchased by the defendants first party. By mistake, however, one of the plots sold and which also appertained to Khata 155, namely, plot No. 1260 was not mentioned in the plaint filed before the Munsif.

On 22-4-1950, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint before die Munsif, before whom the present suit was then pending, asking for inclusion of Plot No. 1260, and, for making the corresponding correction in the total area which became 15 bighas and odd, and not 13 bighas and odd, as originally mentioned in the plaint. It will appear from the order-sheet of the court of the Munsif, Exhibit 3 (h) that the amendment was allowed on 26-4-1950. Subsequently, on an objection having been raised by the defendants 1st party regarding undervaluation of the suit lands, the learned Munsif, after taking evidence and hearing the parties, fixed the valuation of khata 155 with an area of 15 bighas and odd at Rs. 6275, as will appear from order No. 24 dated 19-2-1951, Exhibit 3 (h). On the valuation found by the learned Munsif he had obviously no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and, accordingly, on the same day, that is, the 19th February, 1951 he returned the plaint for re-presentation before the proper court having jurisdiction to try the suit. The plaint accordingly was re-presented before the court below on the same day, that is, on the 19th February, 1951. An appeal was taken by the plaintiff against the decision of the Munsif dated 19-2-1951, regarding valuation, but his appeal was dismissed by an order dated 21-4-1952 by the appellate court as will appear from its judgment Exhibit E.

5. The plaintiff claimed title to the land in suit by virtue of three sale deeds executed by defendants fourth party, who were the descendants of the recorded tenant. The first sale in favour of the plaintiff by defendants fourth parry was on 11-11-1927, under a registered sale deed, Exhibit 10 (a), under which he purchased a portion of khata 155 including all the plots- purchased at the auction sale by defendants first party, except plot 1260.

Subsequently, on 21-10-1933, under an unregistered sale deed. Exhibit 10 (b), it was alleged by the plaintiff that he purchased plot 1260 along with other plots and was put in possession thereof. Later on, on the 19th September, 1950, a registered sale deed (Exhibit 10) was taken from defendants fourth party in respect of the plots covered by