Limitation from first decree reversal bars recovery of purchase money and post-sale rents in a failed consideration claim.

A suit for recovery of purchase money and related sums was held barred by limitation under Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1908, because time began to run from the first decree reversing the basis of payment; an original decree is not suspended by a pending appeal, and the later appellate decree did not delay limitation. The contention that limitation started only when possession was lost was rejected. A separate claim for patni rents paid after the sale was also barred, as Article 62 would apply in any event, and that amount was not maintainable as a separate suit. The dismissal of the suit was upheld with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit for recovery of the purchase money and related sums was barred by limitation under Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and when the time began to run; (ii) Whether the claim for patni rents paid after the sale was maintainable or barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the suit for recovery of the purchase money and related sums was barred by limitation under Article 97 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and when the time began to run.

Analysis: The suit was treated on the assumption that it fell within Article 97 as one for money paid upon an existing consideration which afterwards failed. Under that article, limitation is three years from the date of failure of consideration. The decisive event was the decree of reversal passed by the court of first instance, because an original decree is not suspended by an appeal. The later appellate decree did not postpone limitation, and the suggestion that time began only upon loss of possession was rejected on the facts and in light of the indemnity contemplated by Section 14 of the Bengal Patni Taluqs Regulation, 1819.

Conclusion: The claim was barred by limitation, and the earlier decree marked the starting point for time.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim for patni rents paid after the sale was maintainable or barred by limitation.

Analysis: The subsequent rents were paid in 1904 and 1905. Even if a different article of limitation were applied, Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would equally bar the claim. The claim was also held not to be maintainable as a separate suit for that amount.

Conclusion: The claim for post-sale patni rents was barred and not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the dismissal of the suit was upheld with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: For a suit founded on money paid on an existing consideration that later fails, limitation runs from the first decree that finally reverses the basis of payment, because an original decree is not suspended by a pending appeal.

---