Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. I may here refer to the indication afforded by Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Read with Section 3 of the Act, it implies that a person who purchases in Court, auction property which at the time of the sale was not in the possession of a judgment-debtor must sue for possession within 12 years from the date when the judgment-debtor was first entitled to possession. If the appellant's argument were well founded, the position; ought to be different in ceses in which there has been an attachment prior to the Court sale. If the Court were to be regarded as being in possession of the property, no suit by the purchaser would be necessary at all. It would be sufficient if he applied to the Court to hand over possession to him. Further, the period of the stranger's possession would have to be reckoned in that view only up to the date of the attachment and not up to the date of the commencement of the suit. This inconsistency might perhaps be obviated by assuming that Article 137 was intended to apply only to cases in which the Court sale has taken place without an antecedent attachment, as, for instance, in execution of a mortgage decree. But I see no warrant for so limiting Article 137 and I am not aware of any case in which it has been so limited.