Judgment Rai, J. 1. This appeal by defendant 1 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga, in title appeal No. 272 of 1943 modifying the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Darbhanga, passed in title suit No. 13 of 1947. 2. The facts leading to the institution of this second appeal may briefly be narrated as follows. On 27-6-1927, Somari Raut, the present plaintiff, gave in usufructuary mortgage 12 bighas 14 kathas 8 dhurs of raiyati land (described in schedlue 1 attached to the present plaint) for a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 to Ramkripal Rai, defendant 3. 2-5-1931 was the due date fixed for the payment of the amount advanced. According to the terms of the rehan bond, the rent was payable by the mortgagor, but in case he failed to do so, the mortgagee was directed to pay the same and realise it with interest at the time of the redemption of the rehan bond. On 13-8-1928, Somari Raut sold to Ramsaran Mandal 6 bighas 16 kathas 10 dhurs, according to the, plaintiffs, and 7 bighas 4 kathas 2 dhurs, according to defendant 1, out of the said holding of 12 bighas and odd for a sum of Rs. 1,722/-. Out of the consideration for the sale deed, Rs. 522/- was paid to the vendor in cash, while the remaining Rs. 1,200.00 was left with the purchaser. Out of this amount of Rs. 1,200/-, Rs. 1,000.00 was intended to go to discharge the dues under the rehan bond dated 27-6-1927, and the sum of Rs. 200/-was to be paid to Ramkripal Rai on the basis of hand-note. In the year 1931 the landlord instituted a suit for rent in respect of the entire holding. The suit was ultimately decreed and the entire (sic)lding was sold by auction on 25-4-1933, for a sum Rs. 285/-. Ramkripal Rai, the mortgagee, thereafter filed (sic) application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P. C., for setting aside the sale which gave rise to miscel-laneous case No. 83 of 1934. It was alleged by Ramkripal Rai, the mortgagee, that the mortgagor had purposely made default in payment of the rent and had brought about the auction sale in collusion with the landlord. On 9-4-1934. miscellaneous case No. 83 of 1934 was compromised, and the auction sale was set aside on the mortgagee paying the sum of Rs. It was alleged by Ramkripal Rai, the mortgagee, that the mortgagor had purposely made default in payment of the rent and had brought about the auction sale in collusion with the landlord. On 9-4-1934. miscellaneous case No. 83 of 1934 was compromised, and the auction sale was set aside on the mortgagee paying the sum of Rs. 361/- to the auction purchaser. It appears that there was further default in paying the rent of the holding resulting in rent suit No. 1351 of 1937 which also was ultimately decreed. In execution of the rent decree passed in the second rent suit the holding was again sold by auction on 17-5-1939, and was purchased by one Sarjug Singh. Somari Raut, the present plaintiff, thereafter filed miscellaneous case No. 153 of 1944 for setting aside the sale. On 18-12-1945, the miscellaneous case was allowed and the sale was set aside. The auction purchaser thereafter went in appeal which was numbered as miscellaneous appeal No. 7 of 1946.On 13-7-1946, this miscellaneous appeal was ultimately compromised on payment of Rs. 750.00 to the auction purchaser, Rs. 300.00 out of which had already been paid and Rs. 450.00 was payable by Somari Raut. In the meantime in March and May, 1944, notices on behalf of the plaintiff were served on defendant 1 calling upon him to redeem the rehan bond dated 27-6-1927. In those notices a number of claims for damages were put forward on behalf of the plaintiff. On 21-3-1944, a reply to those notices was sent on behalf of the defendant first party in which the allegations made against him were denied. It was further asserted that the delay in payment of the rehan money was not due to any fault on his part. It was stated that the mortgagee was not willing to give up possession on receipt of Rs. 1,000/-only on the ground that further amount was due to him under the rehan bond in question. Defendant 1 had expressed his readiness to deposit Rs. 1,000.00 any moment. On 17-1-1947, the plaintiff deposited Rs. 1,000/-to the credit of Ramkripal Rai, the mortgagee. Pour days later, that is, on 21-1-1947, Ramsaran Mandal, defendant 1, also deposited the sum of Rs. 1,000.00 to the credit of Ramkripal Rai vide chalan-exhibit C.On 14-2-1947, the plaintiff filed the present suit for a, number of reliefs. 1,000.00 any moment. On 17-1-1947, the plaintiff deposited Rs. 1,000/-to the credit of Ramkripal Rai, the mortgagee. Pour days later, that is, on 21-1-1947, Ramsaran Mandal, defendant 1, also deposited the sum of Rs. 1,000.00 to the credit of Ramkripal Rai vide chalan-exhibit C.On 14-2-1947, the plaintiff filed the present suit for a, number of reliefs. He claimed a declaration that the sale deed dated 13-8-1928, in favour of Ram Saran Mandal, defendant 1, had remained inoperative. He further claimed a decree against defendant 1 for a sum of Rs. 2,261/-This amount included the sum of Rs. 1,200.00 left with defendant 1 to redeem the rehan bond, the sum of Rs. 450.00 paid to the landlord, the sum of Rs. 361/- paid by the plaintiff to the mortgagee by way of compromise in miscellaneous case No. 83 of 1934 and the sum of Rs. 250.00 representing the cost of the miscellaneous case No. 153 of 1944. 3. The suit was contested by defendant 1 of the first party who pleaded, inter alia, that he had made an attempt to redeem the usufructuary mortgage in time but the mortgagee would not accept that amount as he claimed some more amount due to him under the terms of the rehan bond. He further pleaded that the sum of Rs. 200.00 payable to Ramkripal Rai under a hand-note was not accepted by him on the ground of non-existence of any such hand-note. The amount was, therefore, paid back to the plaintiff. Defendant 1 asserted that by the sale deed dated 13-8-1928, 7 bighas 4 kathas and 2 dhurs out of the holding had been transferred to him and that it was intended to be operative. It was further pleaded by him that he could not get possession of the land sold to him due to the default of the plaintiff, and that he would bring a separate action for realisation of damages from him on that account. Defendant 1 alleged that the plaintiff was not entitled to the sum of Rs. 1,061/- by way of damages. According to him, the suit was barred by limitation. 4. The learned Munsif passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 1,200/-which had been left in deposit with the vendee. He, however, held that the claim for Rs. 1,061/- by way of damages. According to him, the suit was barred by limitation. 4. The learned Munsif passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 1,200/-which had been left in deposit with the vendee. He, however, held that the claim for Rs. 361/-said to have been paid by the plaintiff to Ram-kripal Rai, the mortgagee, who in his turn had paid this amount to the auction purchaser by way of compromise in miscellaneous case No. 83 of 1934 was barred by limitation. He further held that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 450.00 paid by him at the time of the compromise in miscellaneous appeal No. 7 of 1946. 5. It was further held by the trial Court that the plaintiff was entitled to the cost incurred by him in miscellaneous case No. 153 of 1944 whicn was to be ascertained in a subsequent proceeding. On the question of the claim for damages, the learned Munsif held that the rehan bond was not redeemed after the due date due to the fault of defendant 1 with the result that the plaintiff was not able to get possession of the lands mentioned in schedule 3 attached to the plaint by reason ot which he had been kept out of the enjoyment or the produce of that area for so many years. The learned Munsif, however gave a decree for damages for three years only preceding the date or the institution of the suit, the amount of which was to be determined in a subsequent proceeding. The suit was thus decreed in part. 6. Defendant 1, the plaintiff and defendant 3, the mortgagee, all of them went in appeal before the District Judge of Darbhanga. The appeal filed by defendant 1, Ramsaran Mandal was numbered as title appeal No. 244 of 1948. This appeal was valued at Rs. 900.00 which was made up of the following items: (1) Rs. 200.00 under item No. 1 of issue No. 4, that is to say, Rs. 200.00 out of Rs. 1,200.00 left with the purchaser; (2) Rs. 450/-under item No. 3 of issue No. 4 which represented the compromise money paid by the plaintiff in miscellaneous case No. 153 of 1944; and (3) Rs. 250.00 under item No. 4 of issue No. 4 whicn represented costs claimed by the plaintiff in the miscellaneous case. 200.00 out of Rs. 1,200.00 left with the purchaser; (2) Rs. 450/-under item No. 3 of issue No. 4 which represented the compromise money paid by the plaintiff in miscellaneous case No. 153 of 1944; and (3) Rs. 250.00 under item No. 4 of issue No. 4 whicn represented costs claimed by the plaintiff in the miscellaneous case. The appellant had paid a court-fee of Re. -/15/- on the amount of damages as was done by the plaintiff on the plaint. 7. Title appeal No. 272 of 1948 was filed by Somari Raut, the present plaintiff. This appeal was valued at Rs. 1,396-4-0 which consisted of the following items: Rs. 1,146-4-0 by way of interest on the amounts decreed in his favour by the trial court and Rs. 240.00 represented the item which had been disallowed by the trial court and Rs. 10.00 as value of mesne profits. 8. The appeal filed by Ramkripal Rai, defendant 3, the mortgagee, was numbered as Title Appeal No. 274 of 1948. In this appeal he nad merely challenged the finding of the trial court to the effect that the plaintiff had paid Rs. 361/-to him under receipt Ex. 10. 9. The appeals were finally heard by Mr. Shibchandra Prasad, Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga. He allowed title appeal No. 274 of 1948 after holding that the receipt (Ex. 10). filed by the plaintiff was not genuine. He further held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had paid Rs. 361/- to defendant No. 3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to the sum of Rs. 200.00 out of the sum of Rs. 1,200/-left with the vendee. According to him, the claim for Rs. 200.00 was not barred. According to him, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for Rs. 450.00 which was paid by him on 15-8-1946, as part of the compromise in miscellaneous appeal No. 7 of 1946. He further held that the plaintiff was entitled to proportionate costs in miscellaneous case No. 153 of 1944. According to him, the plaintiff was entitled to damages for not being put in possession of 5 bighas 17 kathas 18 dhurs of land mentioned in. schedule 3 of the plaint due to the laches of defendant 1 and he was entitled to damages for six years prior to January, 1947. According to him, the plaintiff was entitled to damages for not being put in possession of 5 bighas 17 kathas 18 dhurs of land mentioned in. schedule 3 of the plaint due to the laches of defendant 1 and he was entitled to damages for six years prior to January, 1947. The learned Subordinate Judge, therefore, dismissed title appeal No. 244 of 1948 filed by defendant 1 with costs. He allowed title appeal No. 274 of 1948 filed by defendant 3 with costs. Title appeal No. 272 of 1948 filed by the plaintiff was allowed in part with proportionate costs. 10. Defendant 1, Ramsaran Mandal, thereafter filed two second appeals before this Court. Second appeal no. 1201 of 1949 was directed against the decree passed in title appeal No. 244 of 1948 and second appeal No. 1201-A of 1949 was directed against the decree passed in title appeal No. 272 of 1948. Both these appeals came up for hearing on the same date. On that date learned counsel for the appellant informed us that Second Appeal No. 1201 of 1949 would not be pressed and the same was dismissed. Second Appeal No. 1201-A of 1949 was, however, pressed but the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff in that appeal was not pressed. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant confined his argument to one point only. He urged that the judgment and decree of the court of appeal below regarding the damages payable to the plaintiff for six years prior to January, 1947, was wholly wrong. He urged that the cause of action for claiming damages from defendant 1 arose on 2-5-1931, in due date under the rehan bond dated 27-6-1927, and the present suit having been filed on 14-2-1947, was barred by limitation. In support of his contention learned counsel relied on the decisions in the cases of Keswar Sao V/s. Guni Singh, 1938 Pat 275 (AIR V 25) (A) and Turner V/s. Moon, (1901) 2 Ch 825 (B). 12. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, contended on the strength of three Division Bench decisions of this Court in the cases of Ram Rachhya Singh V/s. Raghunath Prasad, 1930 Pat 46 (AIR V 17), (C), Mt. Rajbansi Kuer V/s. Bishundeo Narayan Singh, 1931 Pat 271 (AIR V 18) (D) and Mehdatunnissa Begum V/s. Mt. 12. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent, on the other hand, contended on the strength of three Division Bench decisions of this Court in the cases of Ram Rachhya Singh V/s. Raghunath Prasad, 1930 Pat 46 (AIR V 17), (C), Mt. Rajbansi Kuer V/s. Bishundeo Narayan Singh, 1931 Pat 271 (AIR V 18) (D) and Mehdatunnissa Begum V/s. Mt. Halimatunnissa Begum, 1939 Pat 194 (AIR V 26) (E) that the cause of action for the plaintiff to institute the present suit did not arise until he had himself deposited the rehan amount. He submitted that the plaintiff deposited the rehan money on 17-1-1947, and the present suit was filed on 14-2-1947, much within the time of limitation available to his client under the law. 13. I agree with learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that the cause of action to institute the present suit arose on 17-1-1947, as was held in 1930 Pat 46 (AIR V 17) (C), 1931 Pat 271 (AIR V 18) (D) and 1939 Pat 194 (AIR V 26) (E), cited above. With great respect to the learned Judges who decided the case of 1938 Pat 275 (AIR V 25) (A), I am bound to follow the earlier decisions of two Division Benches of this Court reported in 1930 Pat 46 (AIR V 17) (C) and 1931 Pat 271 (AIR V 18) (D). The decision in the case of (1901) 2 Ch 825 (B). also has got no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case an action was brought for damages for breach of the covenant for title implied, and it was held there that the breach was single, entire and complete upon the execution of the covenant. The argument of Mr. De that the cause of action for the present suit arose on 2-5-1931, the due date under the rehan bond, has no force. The present suit could be filed only when the plaintiS was actually damnified, that is to say when he himself deposited the entire rehan money on 17-1-1947, in order to get possession of the lands mentioned in schedule 3 to the plaint.I agree with the lower appellate court that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for being kept out of possession of schedule 3 lands for six years preceding the date of the institution of the present suit. It may be, however, made clear that the plaintiff will not be entitled to get any damages after he got delivery of possession on 21-1-1947. 14. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The cross-objection, having not been pressed, is dismissed without costs. Ahmad, J. 15 I agree.