JUDGMENT

Dunkley, J - The plaintiff-applicants brought a suit for a personal decree only for the amount of Rs. 95 due on a registered mortgage deed. They did not ask for any decree against the land, because the land had been sold for default of payment of revenue. The defendant-respondent admitted the loan and the amount due thereon but pleaded limitation, and the learned Township Judge, holding that the last payment on account of the amount due on this registered deed had been paid more than three years prior to the date of filing the plaint, dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation. He has entirely misconceived the law of limitation relating to registered bonds. In the first place he has taken into account, for the purposes of limitation, certain payments, which are alleged to have been made by the respondent to the applicants, but as none of these payments had been endorsed in the handwriting of the respondent, under the provisions of Section 20, Lim. Act, as amended, they could not be taken into account. But however in the case of a registered bond the article of the Limitation Act, which is applicable, is not Article 59, an article which the learned Township Judge has applied, but Article 116. The decision of a Bench of this Court in Ram Raghubir Lal v. United Refineries (Burma), Ltd. A.I.R. 1931 Rang 139, and of their Lordships of the Privy Council on appeal from that decision, Ram Raghubir Lal v. United Refineries (Burma) Ltd. , are conclusive on this point.

2. It has been urged on behalf of the applicants that Section 68, Clause (c), T.P. Act, is applicable to this suit, because the mortgagee was deprived of his security in consequence of the default of the mortgagor in paying the land revenue due on the land, and, in my opinion this contention must be held to be correct. That being so, time would not begin to run against the applicants until the default in payment of land revenue, which resulted in the sale of the land, took place: see Maung Yan Kwin v. Maung Po Ka A.I.R. 1925 Rang. 223. Under Article 116, Lim. Act, the period of limitation is not three years, as the learned Township Judge has held to be applicable to this suit, but six years, and consequently the suit was well within time.

3. It has been urged on behalf of the respondent that there was no default on the part of the mortgagor, because there is evidence to show that he wad unable to pay the land revenue, and in-formed the mortgagees of this fact. But his inability is a default. The duty was upon him, as he was in possession of the security, to preserve it by paying the revenue due thereon, and when he failed to pay the revenue he was in default. Section 68(c), T.P. Act was therefore clearly applicable to this case. The suit was in time, and there) was no defence thereto. The judgment, and decree of the Township Court of Kungyangon are therefore set aside and instead thereof there will be a decree for the plaintiff-applicants against the defendant-respondent for the amount claimed, with costs in both Courts, advocate's fee in this Court two gold mohurs.