JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J.:— This appeal arises out of a suit for the redemption of a mortgage brought tinder the following circumstances:— One Mahipal was the owner of the property in suit. He mortgaged it to Ram Sahai on the 18th of January, 1868. On the same date both Mahipal and Ram Sahai executed a mortgage in favour of Mustaid Husain, The property thus mortgaged consisted of the equity of redemption of Mahipal and the mortgagee rights of Ram Sahai. Mustaid Husain brought a suit for sale under his mortgage in 1871. That suit was compromised by him and Ram Sahai, and Mahipal was exempted from liability. In accordance with the compromise, a decree was passed on the 10th May, 1871, for the recovery of the amount agreed upon by Mustaid and Ram Sahai as being due under the mortgage, and for the sale of the property comprised in the mortgage. The decree in terms-exempted Mahipal. In execution of this decree the property was sold in 1884, and one Musahab Husain purchased it. He subsequently sold it to Kunj Behari and Ajudhiya Prasad, the predecessors in title of the defendants Nos. 8, 9 and 10. In February, 1900, Mahipal executed in favour of the present plaintiff a sale-deed of his equity of redemption in the property, and it is by virtue of this sale that the plaintiff brought his suit for the redemption of the mortgage made in favour of Mustaid Husain by Mahipal and Ram Sahai on the 18th January, 1868. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that Mahipal had sold his equity of redemption to Ram Sahai, before the decree of the 10th May, 1871, was passed, and that consequently Mahipal had ceased to have any interest in the mortgaged property, and the plaintiff acquired no right to re-deem the mortgage. The court of first instance found in favour of the defendants on the question whether Mahipal has sold his interest to Ram Sahai, and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate court has affirmed the decree of the court of first instance, being of opinion that article 134 of the second schedule of the Indian Limitation Act applied to the suit, and that as the present suit was brought after twelve years from the date of the auction sale in execution of Mustaid Husain's decree, the suit was barred by limitation. The court came to no finding as to whether Mahipal had sold his equity of redemption to Ram Sahai. It is clear that if Mahipal's equity of redemption had not been purchased by Ram Sahai before the passing of the decree of the 10th of May, 1871, Mahipal's interest in the mortgaged property, that is his, equity of redemption still subsists, He was exempted from the suit brought by Mustaid Husain by the petition of compromise filed in that suit, and the decree also exempts him from liability. It is true that he had been made a party to the suit, but the effect of the compromise and the decree was to remove his name from the array of parties-decree cannot, therefore, affect the rights which Mahipal may have had in the property, and consequently it cannot affect the plaintiff, who is the purchaser of those rights from him. 2. Unless, therefore, article 134 bars the claim, the lower appellate court should have found whether or not Mahipal had sold his equity of redemption to Ram Sahai. In my judgment, article 134 has no application to this case. That article prescribes a period of limitation of twelve years in the case of a suit to recover possession of immoveable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust or mortgaged, and afterwards purchased from the trustee or the mortgagee for valuable consideration. It clearly contemplates the case of a purchaser from the mortgagee of the property itself, and not of the mortgagee's rights only. It is true that in the present instance the property itself was sold by auction in execution of Mustaid Husain's decree in 1884, but the purchaser at the auction sale was not a purchaser from the mortgagee. Article 134 clearly applies to a case in which the mortgagee has himself voluntarily sold the properly, and does not apply to the case of a forced sale in execution of a decree. This view is supported by the Full Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Ahmed Kutti v. Raman Nmnbudti, [1900] I.L.R., 26 Mad., 99.. A similar opinion was expressed by the court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai v. Bhagwan Din, [1886] I.L.R., 9 All., 97. The court below was therefore wrong in holding that, the claim was barred by limitation under the provisions of article 134. A similar opinion was expressed by the court in the case of Bhagwan Sahai v. Bhagwan Din, [1886] I.L.R., 9 All., 97. The court below was therefore wrong in holding that, the claim was barred by limitation under the provisions of article 134. As, however, that court did not determine the question whether Ram Sahai had or had not purchased from Mahipal the latter's equity of redemption in the mortgaged property, that question must be referred to the court, below under section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I order accordingly. The court will take such additional evidence as may be necessary. On receipt of the finding ten days will be allowed for filing objections.