Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.

1. There has been a great deal of learned discussion in the course of the argument of this appeal on both sides, but it has ultimately turned out that the case has to be disposed of not on any consideration of any difficult questions of law or construction of statute but merely on a construction of the document itself bearing on the question. Both the lower Courts have held that the plaintiff who was suing for redemption was not barred by reason of Art. 134, Schedule 2, Limitation, Act. The argument for the defendants-appellants before me was that both the lower Courts erred in holding that that article did not apply. In the view that I have taken of this case it seems to me that at the present stage it is unnecessary to discuss any of the various decisions that have been cited at the Bar. I may, however, briefly refer only to one point. The corresponding article in the Limitation Act of 1871 contained the expression "good faith" and the corresponding article in the Limitation Act of 1859 contained the words "bona fide." Both these articles therefore, were held applicable only to cases where the purchase or transfer as the case may be was either bona f