Rajamannar, C.J.-In our opinion the application of Article 180 of the Limitation Act to the facts of this case by the learned Judge was right. Though the third column of Article 180 refers to the date when the sale becomes absolute, that clause must be read not only with the provisions of Order 21, rule 92 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also with the other material sections and orders of the Code This view has been authoritatively enunciated by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Chandra Mani Shaha v. Anarjan Bibi1 . In the the present case there was an application under Order 21, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code by Nagammal, who claimed under a possessory mortgage, and that claim was, as a matter of fact, allowed on the 14th June, 1943. The decree-holder filed a suit to set aside this claim order as she was entitled to do. This suit terminated in a compromise decree only on 15th August, 1944 and the application under Order 21 rule 95, Civil Procedure Code was made by the decree-holder on 14th August, 1947, within three years from the date when the claim suit was disposed of. We are clearly of the view that the sale could not be said to have become absolute till the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document