JUDGMENT

Jai Lal, J. - The only question in this case is one of limitation. The brief facts of the case arc that the respondent obtained a money decree against the predecessor in the interest of the appellant and in execution of that money decree he realised the amount, involved in the present suit, in excess of the amount due to him under the decree. It appears that he had received some amounts from the judgment-debtor which in the previous application for execution he admitted as having received from him but in the final application that he made on 8th October 1925, he did not give credits for the amounts which he had previously admitted to have received and executed the decree for the full amount and on 19th November 1927, had a house of the judgment-debtor sold, which he purchased himself. It having been found that the amount claimed in the present suit by the previous judgment-debtor was actually realized by the respondent in excess of the amount which was really due to him under the decree, the question is what article of the Limitation Act applies to the suit and from what date the period be counted. In Ganpat v. Kirpa Ram (1892) 79 P.R. 1892 Article 115, Lim. Act, was held t