JUDGMENT Kaul, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal in a suit for possession and for arrears of rent. 2. The material facts are as follows: One Hashmat Ali owned a house in the town of Bharaich. He made a gift of that house to his wife Basti Begam. Basti Begam died in 1911, leaving her husband, Hashmat Ali and a daughter Munir Begum as her heirs. In 1920 Hashmat Ali mortgaged the house to Saheb Ali. On the l6(sic)th of July, 1927, he executed another mortgage in favour of Mst. Habiba, mother of the present Appellant Khadim Husain Khan. On the 8th of August, 1927, Hashmat Ali executed a Sarkhat in favour of Habiba by which he continued in possession of the house as a tenant of the mortgagee. On the 23rd of January, 1942, a suit was instituted by Khadim Husain Khan, Appellant, for recovery of rent and for ejectment against Kifayat Ali, son of Hashmat Ali. Hashmat Ali had died on the 1st of June, 1937. Khadim Husain Khan impleaded his own father Ghulam Husain Khan as a proforma Defendant. On the allegation that the share in the property left by his mother (Mst. Habiba), which had been inherited by his father, had also been transferred to him. Subsequently three other Defendants, Afzal Ali, Ehsan Ali and Mst. Kaniz Fatima were impleaded as Defendants. They were said to be the heirs of Munir Begum, daughter of Basti Begum. The suit was later withdrawn against Afzal Ali as he was not among Munir Begam's heirs. 3. The Defendants contested the claim on a number of grounds. Subsequently by an amendment the Plaintiff converted the suit, which was originally one for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of a tenant, into one for possession and for compensation for use and occupation. The Defendants denied that the Plaintiff was the representative in interest of Mst. Habiba. The mortgage created by Hashmat Ali was denied. It was further contended that the Sarkhat executed by Hashmat Ali in favour of Habiba did not create the relationship of tenant and landlord between them. They also pleaded adverse possession and limitation as a bar to the success of Plaintiff's suit. 4. The trial Court held that the Plaintiff was representative in interest of Habiba, and that Hashmat Ali was entitled only to a fourth share in the property left by Basti Begum. They also pleaded adverse possession and limitation as a bar to the success of Plaintiff's suit. 4. The trial Court held that the Plaintiff was representative in interest of Habiba, and that Hashmat Ali was entitled only to a fourth share in the property left by Basti Begum. The mortgages executed by Hashmat Ali in favour of Saheb Ali and Habiba were held proved. It was further held that Habiba had paid off Saheb Ali's mortgage. As regards the effect of the Sarkhat executed by Hashmat Ali in favour of Mst. Habiba, the learned Munsif was of opinion that it did not create the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In the end the suit was dismissed as it was held to be barred by the law of limitation. 5. There was an appeal which was disposed of by the learned Civil Judge of Bahraich. He upheld the findings of the trial Court, but while the trial Court, was of opinion that the case was covered by Article 139 of the Limitation Act the appellate Court held that the case fell under Article 144 of the Act, Dissatisfied with this decision Khadim Husain Khan has preferred the present appeal, 6. On the findings arrived at by the Courts below it may now be taken as established that Hashmat Ali became owner of a fourth share in the house on the death of his wife, Basti Begam and that he mortgaged the entire house to Mst. Habiba, mother of the present Appellant, on the 15th of July, 1927, and continued in possession thereof by executing on the 8th of August, 1927, a Sarkhat in favour of the mortgagee Mst. Habiba. No rent appears to have been paid under this Sarkhat. That Hashmat lived in this house with his family and other relations. He died in 1937. On these facts the question which arises for consideration is what is the nature of the present suit and it is barred by the law of limitation. On the facts it is clear that after amendment of the plaint it is a suit for possession by a mortgagee of the property mortgaged. In that view of the matter the case would be covered by Article 135 and not by Article 139 as held by the trial Court or by Article 144 as held by the lower appellate Court. In that view of the matter the case would be covered by Article 135 and not by Article 139 as held by the trial Court or by Article 144 as held by the lower appellate Court. Article 135 provides for a suit instituted in a Court not established by Royal Charter by a mortgagee for possession of immoveable property mortgaged. It was contended however, that even if that article applied the claim was barred as it was instituted more than 12 years after the execution of the mortgage. Under Article 135 the time begins to run against the mortgagee when the mortgagor's right to possession determines. Under the deed of mortgage executed in favour of Mst. Habiba, she was entitled to possession immediately We find, however, that though there is a recital in the deed that actual possession of the property mortgaged had been delivered to the mortgagee, the house confirmed in possession of the mortgagor who executed a Sarkhat on the 8th of August, 1927, in favour of Mst. Habiba. It was argued that this being a Sarkhat the document executed by Hashmat Ali alone could not be taken to be a lease, as defined in the Transfer of Property Act. In the view that I take of the matter, the question whether Ex. 2, the Sarkhat executed by Hashmat Ali does or does not amount to a lease is of no significance. What we have to determine is when did Hashmat Ali right to possession of the house determine. But for this Sarkhat it would have determined on the 15th of July, 1927, the date of the mortgage in favour of Mst. Habiba. But by this agreement Hashmat Ali continued in possession of the mortgaged property. The mortgagor's right to possession determined at the time when the terms of the mortgage entitled the mortgagee to take possession. But if the parties agreed expressly or impliedly, that the mortgagor should continue in possession, it would determine when such agreement comes to an end. There can hardly be any doubt that Hashmat Ali continued in possession of the house under the Sarkhat. It is immaterial whether relationship of landlord and tenant was created between Mst. Habiba and him or not. Under this Sarkhat he was entitled to remain in possession for one year. At the expiry of that period his right to possession determined. There can hardly be any doubt that Hashmat Ali continued in possession of the house under the Sarkhat. It is immaterial whether relationship of landlord and tenant was created between Mst. Habiba and him or not. Under this Sarkhat he was entitled to remain in possession for one year. At the expiry of that period his right to possession determined. Limitation accordingly began to run under Article 135 of the Limitation Act from the 8th August, 1928. But as the present suit was not brought within 12 years of that date, it must be held to be beyond time. 7. The result, therefore, is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.