JUDGMENT 1. In this appeal the learned District Judge has held that Article 132 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the case of a loan which is to be repaid in paddy, the interest to be paid in paddy, security being given for it. But, since he decided the case, the point in question has been set at rest by a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chand Sur v. Iswar Chandra Giri 61 Ind. Cas. 539 : 32 C.L.J. 278 : 25 C.W.N. 57 : 48 C. 625. It is there held that a suit to recover the value of paddy charged upon Immovable property is a suit to enforce payment of money charged Upon Immovable property within the meaning of Article 132 of the Limitation Act. We must, therefore, hold that this appeal has been wrongly decided on the question of limitation. We accordingly decree this appeal and remand the case to the lower Appellate Court for decision of the other issues arising in the appeal, Costs will abide the result.