The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of different articles of the Limitation Act, specifically Art.62, Art.37, and Art.109, in the context of recovery of money under chitty hypothecation deeds, and the period of limitation for filing suit for defaulted instalments and the entire balance instalments after default in lump.

Mohammed Shafi, J.

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 157/87 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam is the appellant. The suit was filed for recovery of money due under the chitty hypothecation deeds executed by the respondents- defendants in the suit.

2. The respondents were subscribers in the chit conducted by the appellant as foreman and they have executed 3 chitty hypothecation deeds marked as Exts. Al to A3 in the suit in favour of the appellant. The fact that the respondents defaulted payment of the instalments due under the chit from 16th instalment onwards and the appellant filed the above suit for realisation of the entire amount with interest due for the instalments from 16 to 50 is not indispute. It is the common case that the 16th instalment was due on 7.9.1983 and the appellant filed the above suit on 27.2.1987 claiming recovery of the amount due for the instalments 16 to 50 with interest.

3. The respondents contended that the instalments 16 to 21 are barred by limitation since the appellant is entitled to claim only the instalments which fell due within three years prior to the date of filing of the suit.

4. Though the appellant contended that since Exts. Al to A3 registered mortgage deeds are executed by the respondents securing the payment of instalments due under the chits, Art.62 of the Limitation Act is applicable which provides limitation of 12 years from the due date, the lower court rejected that contention, and accepting the contention of the respondents that Art.37 of the Limitation Act is applicable to this case and as such instalments fell due beyond three years from the date of suit are barred by limitation, passed the impugned decree and judgment in favour of the appellant for instalments due from 22 to 50 with interest thereon.

5. It is well settled that for filing a suit for realisation of money charged on the immovable property, the period of limitation is 12 years when the money became due, from the decision of the Privy Council in Lasa Din v. Mt. GulabKunwar (AIR 1932P.C. 207). The recitals in Exts. Al to A3 hypothecation deeds executed by respondents establish that they are registered mortgage deeds charging the immovable property for the payment of the balance instalments due under the chitty transaction. Art.37 of the Limitation Act is applicable only to chitty hypothecation bonds pure and simple executed without charging the immovable property for the due and proper payment of the instalments or offering immovable property as security.

6. In the decision in Moitheen Abdu v. Narayana Iyer, (1951) 6 DLR Travancore - Cochin 303) a Division Bench of the Travancore - Cochin High Court has observed as follows:

"Art.109 which is the article intended for recovery of amounts charged on immovable properties provides for a period of twelve years from the date on which the amount accrues due. This can be applied to instalment bonds as well as to non-instalment bonds. In such cases, the principle underlying Art.60, Limitation Act can be extended to cases of charges contemplated by Art.109. The period of limitation for each instalment will be twelve years and the cause of action for each will arise on the date on which instalment falls due."

7. In the decision in Krishna Filial v. Padmanabhan (1955 KLT 840) Division Bench of the Travancore - Cochin High Court has observed as follows:

"The more serious point raised by learned counsel is the question of limitation in respect of the instalments 14 to 18. These had accrued due before the date of the demand for lump and also fell outside the period of 12 years from date of suit. It is admitted that Art.120 of the Limitation Act VI of 1100 (Travancore) governs the case. That Article provides inter alia for recovery of money due under hypothecation bond payable in instalments but with the condition attached that the whole will be due if default be made in one or more instalments. The period provided for such suit is 12 years, as regards each of the i