1. In our judgment the period of limitation for a suit for sale under the instrument id question in the present case is that prescribed by Article 147 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act.

2. In Ramachandra Rayaguru v. Modhu Padhi I.L.R. 21 Mad. 326 Shephard, J., dealt with the case upon the supposition that the instrument then before the Court was a charge not amounting to a mortgage and held that Article 132, which relates to suits to enforce by judicial sale payment of money charged on Immovable property, applied.

3. In the present case it is quite clear that the instrument is a mortgage. In the case referred to, Subrahmania Ayyar, J., was of opinion that the article applicable was Article 132, on the ground that the words "by a mortgagee for foreclosure or sale in Article 147" referred only to a suit for foreclosure or sale in the alternative. We do not think this is the right construction of the article. For the reasons stated in the order of reference which we substantially adopt, we think the article applies to a suit by a mortgagee whether the suit is one for foreclosure (see Sections 86 and 87 and paragraph 2 of Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act), or