Judgment :- 1. This appeal by the defendant raises the question of interpretation of S.23 of Act XXXI of 1958. 2. The suit out of which the appeal arises is for recovery Rs. 402.81 p. being the arrears of rent due for 1132 and 1133 under a marupat Ext. Al dated 13-7-1956 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The property belonged to the defendant who assigned the same to the plaintiff under Ext. BI dated 13-7-1956. On the same date the defendant took back the property on lease under Ext. Al. The suit is for recovery of rent due thereunder. 3. Ext. B1 contains a clause for reconvey ing the property to the defendant after a period of 12 years on payment of Rs. 1750/- and the arrears of rent, if any. J he defendant claimed the benefit of S.23 of Act XXXI of 1958. The learned Munsiff found that he is entitled to take advantage of S.23 of Act XXXI of 1958 and dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge, on the other hand, was of the view that in view of the terms of Ext. B1, S.23 of Act XXXI of 1958 has no application and decreed the suit. 4. The relevant provision in Ext. B1 on which the applicability of S.23 of Act XXXI of 1958 depends reads thus: S. 23 of Act XXXI of 1958 is in the following terms: "Sale with a condition to repurchase to be deemed to be mortgages: Where under a sale deed in respect of immovable property there is provision to re-purchase the property within any stipulated period on payment of any specified amount and such period has not expired at the commencement of this Act. then, notwithstanding any law or contract to the contrary, the transaction shall be deemed to be mortgage and the provision of S.11 shall apply thereto. The consideration for the sale shall be deemed to be the mortgage amount." According to the above provision, the sale deed should provide for re-purchasing the property within any stipulated period (the underlining is ours). Ext. B1 only provides for re-purchase after 12 years. 5. The question is whether such a clause will satisfy the requirement of S.23 of Act XXXI of 1958. We have no hesitation to hold that it cannot. The word 'within' is expressive of the intention that there shall be an outer limit. Ext. B1 only provides for re-purchase after 12 years. 5. The question is whether such a clause will satisfy the requirement of S.23 of Act XXXI of 1958. We have no hesitation to hold that it cannot. The word 'within' is expressive of the intention that there shall be an outer limit. It means 'on or before'. In Black's Law Dictionary (page 1777) the word 'within. is explained thus: ' When used relative to time, has been defined variously as meaning any time before; at or before; at the end of; before the expiration of; not beyond; not exceeding; not later than. The use of the word 'within' as a limit of time, or degree, or space, embraces the last day, or degree or entire distance, covered by the limit fixed." An identical question was considered by Velu Pillai J. in Kandakka Sooppi v. Joseph 1965 KLT 1236. The learned judge observed: "In my view, the decision of the case must turn on the meaning of the term 'within any stipulated period' the word 'within, pointing to an cuter limit of a specified period, the fixation of an inner limit, if I may say so, by i self, being insufficient. The term 'within according to dictionary, means 'not beyond". I look in vain for such a limit in the relevant provision in Ext. B1 quoted above." With great respect to the learned judge we agree with the above observations. 6. In the order of reference to the Division Bench Raghavan J. doubted the correctness of the decision in Kandakka Sooppi v. Joseph 1965 KLT 1236. The learned judge said: "On the first question, whether there should be an outer limit fixed, I do not agree with Velu Pillai J. My view on the matter is that If under a document like the one before me the vendor has the right to repurchase, which he can exercise within a reasonable time after the time fixed in the document, there is a stipulation of time and the repurchase can be effected within such reasonable time. The result is to such a case S.23 must apply." With respect we cannot subscribe to the above observation. The expression "within any stipulated period" in S.23 is susceptible only of one interpretation, viz , that the document of sale should provide for an outer limit within which the repurchase has to be effected. The result is to such a case S.23 must apply." With respect we cannot subscribe to the above observation. The expression "within any stipulated period" in S.23 is susceptible only of one interpretation, viz , that the document of sale should provide for an outer limit within which the repurchase has to be effected. We therefore hold, following the decision in Kandakka Sooppi v. Joseph 1963 KLT 1236 that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct and that the appeal has only to be dismissed. We do so; but we make no order as to costs. The decree being one for arrears of rent, will be executed subject to the provisions of S.73 of Act 1 of 1964.