JUDGMENT

Brasher, J. - The only question raised in this appeal is one of limitation.

2. The plaintiff sued for pre-emption in respect of an oral sale, the vendee having been at the time of the sale a tenant under the vendor. The mutation relating to the sale was entered up on December 24th, 1918, and the mutation was sanctioned on December 29th, 1918. The learned District Judge has found that the oral sale took place about a month before the mutation was entered, i.e., about November 24th, 1918. Taking this as the starting point for limitation he has held that the suit is barred by-time, it being admitted that the suit would be within limitation if time is to be reckoned from the date of the mutation. For the appellant the finding that the sale took place prior to the date of the entry of the mutation is challenged and it is contended that Article 10 does not apply at all, but that even if this Article is to be applied the vendee did not take possession under the sale until the mutation was sanctioned.

3. The finding that the salt took place a month prior to the date of the mutation entry is a finding of fact which has some evidence to support it, and I cannot question this finding in second appeal.

4. The question whether Article 10 of the Limitation Act is applicable to a case of this kind is not free from difficulty and no authority directly in point has been cited. Prior to the sale the vendee was already in physical pospession of the property sold as a tenant, and no physical possession could be given to him. I am disposed to hold that the subject of the sale did not admit of physical possession; but, if Article 10 is to be applied, then limitation runs from the date of taking physical possession under the sale, and I do not see how the character of the vendee's possession changed on the date when the sale was effected. The vendee cannot, 1 think, be said to have taken possession under the sale until his new status was publicly proclaimed at the time of the mutation, and, therefore, whether Article 10 of the Limitation Act or Section 30 of the Punjab Preemption Act is to be applied the date from which limitation runs is the date when the mutation was attested.

5. In my opinion, therefore, the suit is within time. It has been found that the plaintiff has a right of preemption and that the price, Rs. 200, was paid and fixed in good faith.

6. I accordingly accept this appeal and give the plaintiff a decree for pre-emption on payment of Rs. 2C0, the purchase money to be paid into Court on or before August 12th, 1922. On payment into Court of such purchase money the defendant shall deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff, but if the purchase-money be not paid on or before August 12th, 1922 the suit shall be dismissed with costs throughout to the defendant, Shahji. The appellant will get his costs in this Court against the respondent Shahji, in the event of the money being paid.