The attachment of unpaid purchase money is valid under the relevant enactments, and the suit is within the permissible period of limitation.

1. This is a defendant' s second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 3760-00, and, in order to ensure recovery, for a charge on a single storeyed house with land and chabutra pertaining thereto situated in the Court of Wards compound at Aligarh. There were two sets of defendants in the case. The three appellants were defendants of the first set. The defendant - respondents Nos. 4 to 10 were the defendants of the second set.

2. The case of the plaintiff - respondents was that Hari Mohan, the ancestor of the defendants second set, had sold the aforesaid house on which charge for securing recovery of the amount claimed was sought, for the sum of Rs. 15,000/- on November 7, 1951 in favour of Smt. Bhagwati Devi, wife of Sri Murari Lal, the father of the defendants first set; that out of the sale consideration Rs. 2500/- were paid as earnest money and Rs. 8750/-were paid at the time of the registration of the sale - deed leaving a balance of Rs. 3750/- which was left by the vendor with the vendee Smt. Bhagwati Devi as unpaid purchase money; that Lala Ram Swarup, the father of the first and the third plaintiffs and husband of the second plaintiff, respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 2 respectively had two decrees in Suits Nos. 550 of 1953 and 211 of 1955 of the Court of the Munsif, Koil, District Aligarh against Sri Hari Mohan, father of the defendants Nos. 4, 6 and 7 and husband of defendant No. 5 who are defendant - respondents Nos. 4, 9, 10 and 8 respectively, the defendant - respondents Nos. 5, 6 and 7 being the sons of Man Mohan defendant respondent No. 4, that the said unpaid purchase money amounting to Rs. 3750/- in the hands of Smt. Bhagwati Devi was attached and sold as the property of Hari Mohan, the vendor, now represented by the defendants second set (defendant - respondents Nos. 4 to 10); that Lala Ram Swarup now represented by plaintiff - respondents Nos. 1 to 3 demanded payment of the said amount of Rs. 3750/- from the defendants first set now represented by the defendant - appellants and even served a notice, but the defendant - appellants did not pay any heed, hence the suit. It was also alleged that Lala Ram Swarup died as a member of a Hindu joint family and his interest was now duly represented by the plaintiff - respondents who were his survivors and entitled to recover the amount due without obtaining any succession certificate; that Smt. Bhagwati Devi had also died and the defendants first set (appellants) were her heirs in possession of the property and responsible for payment of unpaid purchase money: and that Hari Mohan, the original vendor, had also died and was now represented by the defendants second set who were his heirs and were being impleaded as defendants in order to avoid any dispute in future. The dates of the accrual of cause of action for the suit as alleged in the plaint are November 7, 1951, the date of the sale - deed and July 26, 1955, the date of the auction sale of the liability for payment of the unpaid purchase money.

3. The defendants first set, namely, the appellants, contested the suit on the plea that the payment of Rs. 3750/- was dependent on fulfilment of certain conditions and as those conditions had not been fulfilled, the suit was premature; that in a partition suit decided on November 1, 1955, the house in question had been allotted to other co - sharers and against that decree First Appeal No. 621 of 1956 was pending in the High Court; that another Suit No. 7 of 1959 of the Court of the Civil Judge, Aligarh, Indian Ma