JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— Upon the only ground of appeal which the learned Advocate for the appellants has pressed upon our notice, we think that the Courts below decided rightly. That ground is that the suit was barred by limitation. The suit was brought to recover a sum of Rs. 540-11-0 which the plaintiff paid into Court in order to obtain the cancelment of the sale of a share of a shop which at the time he believed to be his property, but which, as a matter of fact, belonged to his brothers. The share had been attached in execution on the 4th of September, 1900, and on the 20th of February, 1901, the plaintiff paid into Court the amount of the decree and obtained the cancelment of the sale. After this he filed a petition under section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the release of the shop from attachment and for repayment of the money deposited by him in Court. This claim was allowed on the 20th of September, 1901, but the decree-holder filed an appeal and obtained a reversal of the decision of the Court below on the 13th of December, 1903, and the property, therefore, was not released from attachment. The amount deposited by the plaintiff was awarded to the decree-holder. The payment, therefore, was really made to the decree-holder some time after the 13th of December, 1903, and it is from the date of such payment that time would run against the plaintiff. This being the starting point for limitation, it is clear that the suit is not barred. No other ground of appeal has been pressed. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.