https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277927 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. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 1918 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 31 Dec 2018 07:33:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277927 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Dec 1918 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277927