Short Note : 1. The Court of appeal went into the question of limitation and agreed with the trial Court. The appeal Court also found that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit lands. The defendants had attempted to interfere with his possession and therefore, proceedings under section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure were started by Sub Divisional Magistrate. The disputed property was attached by an order dated 8-10-1945 and it was ordered that the attachment shall continue till the question of title is decided by a competent Court. The present suit filed on 30-1-1967 was more than six years after the order of the Magistrate and therefore, barred by limitation. Held : It would be seen from the judgment of the two Courts that the plaintiff had established his title to the land having obtained a registered Patta from Dalipsingh, Baboosingh and Biharisingh. He was also in possession of the lands before the defendants attempted to interfere with his possession which had given rise to the proceedings under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The question then is whether, in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff not having filed his suit within a period of six years from the date of the order of the Magistrate, the suit failed being barred by limitation. The suit is merely of a declaratory character and when it was filed, the criminal Court was in possession of the suit lands. The actual or physical possession was with the Magistrate. The plaintiff could not be regarded as having been dispossessed by the Magistrate. The criminal Court merely held possession on behalf of the true owner and was merely detaining the property. The Magistrate not being satisfied as to which of the parties was in possession had attached the property but such attachment would operate for the purpose of limitation merely as detention or custody of the property by the Magistrate who, pending the decision of the civil Court of competent jurisdiction, holds it merely on behalf of the party entitled. In such case, the seisin or the legal possession during the attachment will be in the true owner. The plaintiff undoubtedly claims here as true owner and being in legal possession though the physical possession was with the Magistrate and prays for a declaration of hi, title as against the defendants. In such case, the seisin or the legal possession during the attachment will be in the true owner. The plaintiff undoubtedly claims here as true owner and being in legal possession though the physical possession was with the Magistrate and prays for a declaration of hi, title as against the defendants. Unless a competent civil Court determined the right of the parties over the property, the property continued in attachment of the Criminal Court. But during the continuance of the attachment, the legal possession for the purposes of limitation will constructively be in the person who had the title at the date of attachment and such title cannot be extinguished by operation of section 28 of the Limitation Act howsoever long such attachment may continue. 2. In view of what has been discussed above, it would follow that when property was attached by a Magistrate under section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the right to sue accrued on the date the order of attachment was passed under Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. The limitation prescribed is for six years. But since the property is held by the Magistrate on behalf of the true owner his rights in the property are not extinguished even after a period of six years as section 28 of the Limitation Act. would not apply. Since the Magistrate was only required to deliver the property after the rights were determined between the rival claimants the rights of the plaintiff in the property, who had filed the suit after six years, could not be defeated and the possession given to the defendants merely because be did not file the suit. The article will have a limited application only so far as the mesne profits were concerned and only a claim for six years could be made. Section 28 of the Limitation Act creates a bar of limitation where a suit for possession of property is filed but such a suit as the present one cannot be regarded as a suit for possession of the property. In this view of the matter the plaintiff in the present case must succeed. The two courts below came to the conclusion that he had a title to the lands and he was in possession till 1945 when the Magistrate had passed the order of attachment. ILR 26 Mad. 410 relied on. Appeal allowed.