( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against a judgment of Mookerjee J. remanding the plaintiff's suit for further consideration.

( 2 ) THE only question which was in controversy before Mookerjee J. and which is now in dispute before us relates to a question of limitation.

( 3 ) IN order to understand the implication of the arguments addressed at the Bar, it is necessary to state the nature of the relief claimed by the plaintiff in his suit and the, facts which preceded it.

( 4 ) THE disputed plots are C. S. dags Nos. 270 and 274. Plot No. 270 is stated in the plaint schedule to be a homestead plot which was held by the defendant's predecessor Upendra Nath Mukherji as a mokarari raiyat under the proprietors of touzi No. 3 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate. Plot. No. 274 is stated in the plaint schedule to be Sali (arable land) which was held, by the said Upendra Nath Mukherji in occupancy right under 'the said touzi No. 3 of the 24-Parganas Collectorate. It appears that Upendra Nath Mukherji sold the disputed items to the defendant in March, 1939. The defendant thereafter proceeded to erect certain structures for the purposes of the electric factory of the defendant. No steps we