Devadoss, J.

1. The plantiffs suit is on a hypothection on executed by the 1st defendant on 16th May 1908. The 2nd defendant is impleaded on the ground that he purchased the hypothecated house after the date of the hypothecation bond. Both the lower Courts have given a mortgage decree in favour of the plaintiff against both the defendants. The 2nd defendant pleaded in his written statements that the 1st defendant ant sold only the house to his father and not the site for a debt due by the defendant to his father. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this case to consider whether the purchase of the house was by the 2nd defendant or by his father.

2. The contention of Mr. Krishna Menon for the appellant is that the suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as it is brought more than three year from the date of the sale to the 2nd defendants father. His argument is that the 2nd defendants father purchased only the materials of the house and that Article 36 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act is the proper article applicable to the case. Before considering the contention it is necessary to make it clear what was it that was actually sold by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defe