( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C.

( 2 ) THE applicant applied under Section 12, U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act, for the redemption of a usufructuary mortgage, dated 1-8-1878, which was executed by Fateh Afzal Khan, grandfather of the plaintiff, in favour of the defendants opposite-parties for a sum of Rs. 259. After the death of Fateh Afzal Khan, his son, Ashraf Khan, executed another mortgage on 30-8-1900 for Rs. 167 in favour of the same mortgagees reciting the existence of the previous mortgage. The plaintiff alleged that limitation for redemption was saved by the acknowledgment about the prior mortgage made in the second mortgage by Fateh Afzal Khan. The defence inter alia was that the suit was barred by limitation.

( 3 ) THE trial Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation and that the entire amount has been paid-up by the usufruct of the property. It, therefore, decreed the suit for redemption without payment of any mortgage money. The lower appellate Court held that the suit was barred by limitation and without going into the merits of the case dismissed the application for redemption. Against this decree the applicant has come up in revision to this Court.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the opposite party that no revision lies against the decree of the Court below on the ground that no question of jurisdiction is involved in the case, and even if the decision of the Court below be wrong, it was an error of law and cannot be corrected in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, and reference has been made in this connection to two cases of their Lordships of the Privy Council, namely, Amir Hasan khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh, 11 Cal. 6 : (11 I. A. 237 P. C.) and Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. Hindu religious Endowments Board, Madras, A. I. R. (36) 1949 P. C. 158 : (76 I. A. 67 ).

( 5 ) ON behalf of the applicant, reliance has been placed upon a recent decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Joy Chand Lal v. Kamalaksha Chaudhary, A. I. R. (36) 1949 P. C. 239 : (76 I. A. 131 ).

( 6 ) ON behalf of the opposite party, it has been contended that the decision in Joy Chand Lal babus case, (A. I. R. (36) 1949 P. C. 239 : 76 I. A. 131) is inconsistent with the decision of the privy Council in the case of Amir Hasan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh, 11 Cal. 6 : (11 I. A. 237 P. C.) and it has been urged that Amir Hasans case, 11 Cal. 6 : (11 I. A. 237 P. C.) related to a question of res judicata and in reference to that question their Lordships of the Judicial committee had held that it did not involve a question of jurisdiction, whereas in Joy Chand Lal babus case, A. I. R. (36) 1949 P. C. 239 : (76 I. A. 131) their Lordships definitely ruled that a decision on a question of Limitatation or res judicata involved a question of jurisdiction.

( 7 ) THE facts in Amir Hasan Khans case, 11 Cal. 6: (11 I. A. 237 P. C.) were these: A suit was commenced in the Court of the Extra Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction under Act xxxii [32] of 1871 in the Sitapur district of Oudh. Amir Hasan Khan sued Sheo Baksh Singh to obtain possession by redemption of a mortgage of a certain property. The property was mortgaged in 1849 by 8 cosharers and the right to redeem had been contested prior to the suit both in the settlement and in the civil Courts. The defence to the suit was that it was barred under section 13 (present Section 11 Civil P. C.) and Section 43 (present C. A Rule 2, Civil P. C.) of act X [10] of 1877 and further that the plaintiff had no title to claim redemption of the mortgaged property. The suit was decreed by the Extra Assistant Commissioner and this decree was confirmed by the District Judge of Sitapur. A petition was, however, presented to the judicial Commissioner under Section 622 (corresponding to Section 115 of the present Civil P. C.) of Act X [10] of 1877, as amended by Section 92 of Act XII [12] of 1879, alleging that the fi