1. We are unable to agree with the lower Courts on the question of limitation. As Benson, J., said in Kristnama Chariar v. Mangammal 26 M. 91 at p. 94 : All periods of limitation are more or less arbitrary, and it is of the highest importance that they should be laid down with clearness and certainty, and that subtle distinctions not warranted by the language of the Legislature should not be introduced by the Courts."

2. Again, as Sir Bhashyam Aiyangar, J., said in the same case at page 96, There cannot be two final decrees in such a suit, one by the Court of first instance and the other by the Court of Appeal." The question of limitation ought not to be made to depend upon the other question (which is almost always a very difficult and doubtful one) whether the appeal by one of the defendants, or as regards a part of the decree of the first Court, imperils the decree passed against, the other defendants, or the other portion of the decree. [See also Loke Nath Singh v. Gaju Singh 31 Ind. Cas. 426 : 22 C.L.J. 33 : 20 C.W.N. 178]. Whether, when the decree of the first Court itself consists plainly of two definitely independent decrees, the appeal against one of the two decrees