Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. This is a suit for redemption. The plaintiff had instituted a previous suit for the same relief. It was found in that suit that the defendants had obtained a complete title to the property by a sale subsequent to the mortgage sought to be redeem, ed in the present suit. The plaintiff alleges that the previous decree was obtained by fraud because the decision proceeded on perjured testimony adduced by the defendants. The suit has, admittedly, been instituted more than three years after the plaintiff became aware of the fraud.

2. The District Judge has held that this suit is governed by Article 95 of the Limitation Act and that it must be held to be barred by limitation. Article 95 provides a period of three years for a suit to set aside a decree obtained by fraud and the starting point is the date from which the plaintiff has knowledge of the fraud.

3. Two arguments have been urged in support of this Second Appeal. It is contended that the suit is substantially one for redemption, that any decree obtained by fraud is a nullity and may therefore be ignored by the plaintiff and that he is not bound to get it set aside. The learned vakil says that in several r