Brij Mohan Lall, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the Plaintiff against a decree of the learned Addl. Civil Judge of Moradabad affirming the decree of the learned Munsif of that place. The latter had dismissed the suit with costs.
(2.) IT appears that one Kadir Bux owned a house. He transferred it to his two wives, Srimati Ismat -un -nissa and Srimati Nasiran in equal shares. By subsequent transfers the share allotted to Srimati Ismat -un -nissa became vested again in Kadir Bux. Thereafter, there was a partition between Kadir Bux and Smt. Nasiran. In this partition the western portion was allotted to Kadir Bux and the eastern to Smt. Nasiran. Kadir Bux transferred the western portion to Aziz -ullah, who executed a simple mortgage thereof in favour of the Appellant on 2 -5 -1916. The Appellant obtained a decree on the basis of this mortgage in 1928, put it in execution and himself purchased the western portion of the house on 9 -3 -1931. On 23 -8 -31 he executed a Dakhalnama purporting to obtain delivery of possession through Court. The suit which has given rise to this second appeal was instituted on 26 -2 -43 by the Appellant for possession of the said western portion and for mesne profits. It was alleged by him that he was in possession of the said portion but was dispossessed in September, 1931 by the Respondents, who are the legal representatives of Smt. Nasiran. There was a claim for mesne profits also but it has been dismissed by the courts below and has not been pressed before me. I am, therefore, concerned in this appeal with the claim in so far as it relates to question of title to the house.
(3.) VARIOUS pleas were taken in defence, but all of them are not material for the purposes of this appeal. Two pleas only need be mentioned as they are relevant for our present purposes. It was alleged that the Respondents had been in adverse possession of the house in question for over twelve years and, therefore the suit was time -barred. It was further contended that the claim was barred by estoppel. These pleas have found favour with both the courts below. Both the courts below have held that the contesting Respondents have been in adverse possession of the house in question since 1928. The suit, as already stated, was instituted in 1943. The question for decision is whether the suit was time barred.;