ORDER :- This is a revision against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, Manipur, decreeing a suit filed by respondent against the petitioner for recovery of the consideration amount paid by him to the petitioner for the purchase of a lou. It appears that the respondent was not able to get possession of the lou after his purchase from the petitioner on 8-11-1948 and he filed Title Suit No. 126 of 1952 against the petitioner for declaration of his title and delivery of possession on the strength of the said sale deed. But the said suit was dismissed on 13-3-1954 on the ground that the petitioner had no saleable interest in the said lou. Then an appeal was filed by the respondent in C. A. No. 43 of 1954. But the said appeal was also dismissed on 19-11-1954. The respondent then came forward with the present suit on 7-12-1957 i.e. more than 3 years after the dismissal of his appeal claiming refund of the purchase money. The petitioner contested the suit and contended that the document was really intended to be a mortgage for Rs. 200/- and that the mortgage money had been repaid by him on 19-12-1950. He also raised the plea that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed more than 3 years after the dismissal of the appeal. 2. The learned Munsiff rejected the plea of the petitioner that the document was really a mortgage and that the mortgage had been redeemed by the petitioner. It is a question of fact and it cannot be agitated at all in this revision and the finding of the Munsiff is conclusive. On the question of limitation, the learned Munsiff held that it was Art. 116 of the Limitation Act which would apply and not Article 97 and that the suit could be filed within 6 years of the dismissal of the appeal and hence the suit was within time. 3. In this revision petition we are only concerned with this question of limitation. Article 97, of the Limitation Act covers the case of a suit for money paid upon art existing consideration which afterwards failed and the period of limitation fixed is 3 years from the date of the failure. It was pointed out for the petitioner that the present case came directly under Art. 97. Article 97, of the Limitation Act covers the case of a suit for money paid upon art existing consideration which afterwards failed and the period of limitation fixed is 3 years from the date of the failure. It was pointed out for the petitioner that the present case came directly under Art. 97. The suit was for refund of the purchase money paid under the sale deed - Ext. 1 for the consideration of the sale of the lou. The respondent did not get the benefit of the sale as he failed to obtain possession. His suit as well as the appeal for obtaining possession were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had no title. Thus the consideration failed after the execution of the sale deed and the date of the failure must be taken to be the date of the dismissal of the appeal, namely, 19-11-1954. The suit had therefore to be filed not later than 19-11-1957. It was argued that the suit having been filed on 7-12-1957 was therefore clearly barred. Decisions were also cited in support of the position that a suit for refund of purchase money upon failure to obtain possession or upon subsequent dispossession was governed by Art 97. 4. The contention of the respondent was that it was Art. 116 which would apply. It was pointed out that Ext. 1 was a registered document, that as per the said sale deed, the petitioner was bound to give possession of the lou under Sec. 55 (1)(1) of the Transfer of Property, that when the petitioner failed to deliver such possession, there was a breach of contract in writing registered, that the said breach was complete on 19-11-1954, when the respondent was denied a decree for possession on the ground that the petitioner did not have any title to the property, that this was again a breach of the contract contained in Sec. 55(2) of the Transfer of Property Act by which the seller shall be deemed to contract with the buyer that the interest which the seller professed to transfer to the buyer subsisted and that he had power to transfer the same, and that the respondent had 6 years time from 19-11-1954 under Art. 116 to file the suit for the breach of contract and that the suit was therefore within time. Certain decisions were cited on the side of the respondent to prove that the suit for refund of the purchase money under such circumstances would be covered by Art. 116. 5. It would appear that there is a conflict of decisions between the various High Courts on this question. But the preponderance of view in the High Courts in the States where the Transfer of Property Act has been made applicable is that the case of a registered sale deed where a vendor fails to put the vendee in possession and the vendee files a suit for refund of the purchase money, the suit will be governed by Art. 116 of the Limitation Act. I have no doubt that this view has to be preferred to the other view found in decisions cited lot the petitioner. There has been a clear breach of contract in writing registered on the part of the petitioner. He was bound to put the respondent in possession, as lie had contracted with the respondent that the interest which he professed to transfer to the respondent subsisted and that he had power to transfer the same. Both these contracts have been broken by the petitioner and he was liable to pay compensation for the breach. The respondent instead of merely claiming the refund of the purchase money could have filed a suit for damages for the breach of contract. The restriction of his claim to the refund of purchase money will not make it any the less a suit for damages for breach of contract, as the very claim for refund is based on the breach of the contract in Writing registered. 6. It was pointed out for the petitioner that the present suit was not for damages for breach of contract, but only for refund of the purchase money and that it would be governed specifically by Article 97. On this argument being advanced, the respondent filed a petition in this Court for amendment of the plaint by converting his suit into one for damages for breach of the contract instead of one for refund of purchase money. It seems to me that such an amendment of the plaint was quite unnecessary. The refund of the purchase money itself is claimed as one of the items of damages for breach of contract. It seems to me that such an amendment of the plaint was quite unnecessary. The refund of the purchase money itself is claimed as one of the items of damages for breach of contract. Where therefore such a claim for refund is claimed on the basis j of a registered document, it is Art. 116 which would apply and not Art. 97. Article 97 really covers cases where the document, is not registered and where the money h not claimed by way of breach of contract. The amendment is therefore not really necessary. The amendment petition is dismissed as unnecessary. I agree with the learned Munsiff that this case is covered by Art. 116 of the Limitation Act and that the suit is within time. The petition therefore fails and it is dismissed with the costs of the respondent. Petition dismissed.