JUDGMENT

Asutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money paid by him to the defendant as putni rent on the 14th October 1910.

2. It appears that the plaintiff purchased the putni at a sale held under Regulation VIII of 1819 on the 14th May 1908. The putnidar instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale, which was decreed on the 28th May 1910. The Zemindar defendant thereupon preferred an appeal, which was ultimately dismissed on the 2nd May 1912. In the interval, on the 14th October 1910, that is, after the Court of first instance had directed cancellation of the sale, the plaintiff paid rent to the defendant to prevent farther sale under the Regulation. The present suit, which was instituted on the 14th February 1916, has been dismissed by the District Judge as barred be limitation. We are of opinion that this view cannot be successfully challenged.

3. The appellant has argued that he is entitled to a deduction of the time which was occupied by a proceeding for assessment of mesne profits as between himself and the original putnidar on the basis of the decree for cancellation of the sale. This contention cannot be uphold in view o