The mandatory nature of limitation provisions and the distinction between 'charge' and 'mortgage' under the Indian Limitation Act were central legal points established in the judgment.

P. K. MOHANTY, J.

( 1 ) THESE three first appeals have been filed by the defendants against the common judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Rayagada, (as it then was) allowing their suits for realisation of arrears of the sale price of the land sold to the defendants by the plaintiff. The dispute is essentially for recovery of arrear sale price of the lands sold by the plaintiff in different sale deeds following an agreement on 3-6-1962 entered into by the plaintiff in all these three suits against the defendants. These three suits had been combined together by the learned Subordinate Judge and the same was disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff's case, in short, is that the plaintiff-respondent Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd. filed T. S. No. 9 of 1977 against I. Sundar Rao and others for realisation of Rs. 32,400. 11 paise, for realisation of Rs. 12,523. 31 paise from Adapa Papa Rao (in T. S. No. 6 of 1977), and for realisation of Rs. 16,376. 66 paise from Machha Sanyasi Rao (in T. S. No. 7 of 1977 ). The learned Subordinate Judge, Rayagada, clubbed up all the suits together at the time of trial and a common set of evidence was recorded for all the suits and delivered a common judgment. The plaintiff is the Jeypore Sugar Company Ltd. represented through its Managing Director. The case of the plaintiff is that the company sold lands in different transactions to the defendants by virtue of a common agreement with I. Sundar Rao and his nominees, the other defendants. Ultimately, the sale deeds in favour of the defendants were executed and registered on 18-4-1965 and the defendants took over possession of the lands. Under the terms of the sale deeds, the plaintiff duly conveyed his right, title and interest in the lands sold to the defendants and ownership had passed to them in respect of the balance of the sale consideration money. Under the terms of the sale deeds, the plaintiff is entitled to charge for the balance sale consideration and for interest. Under the terms of the sale deeds, the last date of payment for the balance unpaid consideration was fixed to 30-6-1965. In the said plaints the plaintiff-respondent Jeypore Sugar Co. prays for recovery of the balance unpaid consideration money with interest.

( 3 ) AS against the claim of the plaintiff Company, the defendants-appellants filed their written statement pointing out therein that they are not liable to pay any thing at all. The defendants admitted purchase of lands from the plaintiff, but they pleaded that the plaintiff was paid in excess of the consideration money. They also pleaded that the suit claims are barred by limitation and that the suits are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

( 4 ) IN order to prove its case, the plaintiff Company has examined two witnesses and proved thirty documents, whereas, the defendants have examined as many as two witnesses and proved twenty documents in support of their respective cases. The trial Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion by the common judgment dated 25-3-1980 and directed the defendants to pay the balance consideration amount and interest pendente lite and future at the rate of 8 per cent per annum till realisation. The Court below further directed the defendants to pay the decretal amount within one month failing which the plaintiff-Company shall realise the same through the process of the Court.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that the suit is barred by time, that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff and not on the defendants irrespective of the stand in the written statement, that the recitals of the sale deeds are admissible, and that the recitals in the sale-deed if are inadmissible, the admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value is another and these two aspects cannot be combined together. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, contends that the suit is not barred by limitation since it