JUDGMENT

Thadani, J - This is an appeal from the decision of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Larkana in Suit No. 33 of 1938 in which he dismissed the plaintiffs-appellants' suit with costs.

2. On 3rd March 1938, one Mir Dad Muhammad Khan Burdi Lohar, ancestor of respondents 1 to 7 and one Mir Bakhsho Khan son of Mir Allan-khan, respondent 8, executed a registered lease deed in favour of one Seth Janjimal and Sadorosing, ancestors of the appellants. The period of the lease was seven years from 1928-29 to 1934-35. Under the terms of the lease, the lessees had to get excavation work done and to make advances to cultivators and for takavi, and the sums so advanced were recoverable from the lessors, and in the event of the lessors interfering in any way with the land or its produce, they were to become liable to the lessees for all damages accruing to them and the damages were; made a charge upon the leased land.

3. It is the appellants' case that their ancestors, the lessees carried out all the terms of the lease; they spent a sum of Rs. 7954 on excavation work, and advanced a sum of Rs. 14,560-2-3 to cultivators, and a further sum of Rs. 10,293-15-3 to their lessors, Mir Dad Md. Khan and Mir Bakhsho Khan, and cultivated the Kharif crop of the year 1928-29; in January 1929, however, when the crop was ready to be gathered, the lessors interfered with the leased land and forcibly took away most of the produce, and kept the possession of the leased land with themselves and the lessees were not permitted to enter upon the land.

In April 1929 Mir Dad Md. Khan sought protection of the Manager, Sind Incumbered Estates who took over possession of the leased land and retained possession of it till 13th November 1931, when he relinquished it under the provisions of Section 19, Sind Incumbered Estates Act and handed the possession of the land to the lessors.

3. Seven years later, the appellants filed the present suit in December 1988 for accounts. In para. 15 of the plaint they stated that the cause of action arose on 15th November 1938 when a demand for accounts was made upon the respondents on the termination of the lease in August 1935 and contended that the period of limitation was six years, having regard to the fact that the lease deed and the mortgage deed were registered. In any case, they contended that as the protection of Mir Dad Md. Khan's estate lasted from 20th June 1929 to 18th November 1931, the period so taken up was to be excluded for the purposes of limitation as provided by the Sind Incumbered Estates Act.

4. Respondent 2, Mir Allahrakhia Khan, in a very long written statement denied the appellants' claim and raised a number of technical defences. He denied the execution of the lease by his father Mir Dad Md. Khan and contended that even if the lease was signed by Mir Dad Md. Khan it was without consideration. In any case, he alleged that the appellants' ancestors were guilty of the breach of the terms of the lease. He denied that the lessors had committed breach of the terms of the lease or had interfered in any way with the crop or had instigated the cultivators and obstructed the lessees.

5. According to respondent 2, some disputes had arisen between the lessors and the lessees; the lessees had committed frauds upon the lessors, and when Mir Dad Md. Khan applied for protection of the Manager, Sind Incumbered Estates, the land in suit was taken over by the Manager who, in due course, leased it to other persons.

6. Upon the pleadings. Mr. Muhammad Bakhsh Memon who was then the First Class Subordinate Judge of Larkana, framed the following issues:

1. Has this Court no jurisdiction to try this suit?

2. Is the suit time-barred?

3. Is the plaint not properly stamped?

4. Can the suit not lie on the basis of the alleged lease deed?

5. Have the plaintiffs no right to sue?

6. Is there misjoinder of parties and causes of action? If so, "hat order should be made?

7. Is the suit not in the proper form?

8. Was any lease deed executed b