Judgment Ram Naresh Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-7-78 passed by Shri Bindhyeshwar Thakur, Additional District Judge, Motihari, in M.A. No. 27/76 2/78 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29-5-76 passed by Shri Sheo Dayal Prasad, 1st Additional Munsif, Motihari, in M.S. No. 24/30 of 1972-75. 2. There was an agreement in between the appellant-defendant and the respondent-plaintiff on 3-10-67 to sell 5 Kathas of Revisional Survey Plot No. 9 of Khata No. 35 of village Mohbat Chapra within the district of East Champaran for Rs. 1,000/-. In pursuance of this agreement a sale-deed was executed and registered on 4-10-67 and the Respondent-plaintiff paid Rs. 1,000/-as consideration amount of the said land to the Appellant-defendant in presence of the Sub-Registrar. On 6-10-67 the plaintiff-respondent came to know that a fraud had been committed by the appellant-defendant in as much as that in place of Survey plot No. 9 Survey Plot No. 120 of the same village was mentioned in the Sale deed, which had been sold to the respondent. Having come to know about this fraud a criminal prosecution was started which ended in acquittal of the appellant. Then the plaintiff-respondent filed the aforesaid Money Suit No. 24/30 of 1972/75 in the Court of Additional Munsif, Motihari. 3. In the trial Court both the parties led evidence. The appellant had amongst other points raised the point of limitation also. But the Trial Court gave its findings against the pleadings of the appellant and that the plaintiff succeeded there. Being aggrieved by that judgment of the trial Court, the appellant filed M.A. No. 27/76 2/78 in the Court of the District Judge, Motihari, which was heard by Shri Bindhyeshwar Thakur, Additional District Judge, Motihari, who, by the impugned order upheld the judgment of the Trial Court and negatived the pleadings of the defendant-appellant. Hence, this appeal. 4. At the very out-set the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant has pressed the appeal on the point of limitation only and that was the only substantial point of law on which this appeal was admitted. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was barred by limitation as required under Article 47 of the Limitation Act. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was barred by limitation as required under Article 47 of the Limitation Act. His further argument is that according to the case of plaintiff himself survey plot No. 120, which is mentioned in Kewala in question belongs to him and, therefore, there was no charge in respect of survey plot No. 9 appertaining to Khata No. 35, which belonged to him. Therefore Article 62 of the Limitation Act would not come into play in this case and that both the Courts below have erred on this point to hold that Article 62 of that Limitation Act is applicable in the present case. In support of his argument he has relied upon a decision in the case of Gillu Teekan V/s. Damodar Dass and Anr. 6. learned Counsel appearing fur the Respondent has supported the judgments of both the Courts below and has argued that this case clearly comes within the purview of Article 62 of the Limitation Act. 7. After perusing the judgments of the learned courts below, the evidence and the pleadings of the parties, I find substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. The aforesaid decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not favour him. In that case the plaintiff came in possession of the land, which was sold to him. Subsequently it transpired that the vendor owned only half share, therefore, Revenue Authorities reviewed their, earlier decision of mutation and reduced the area by half and same was mutated in favour of plaintiff. This led to the filing of suit. During the pendency of that suit an application was made under Order 6 Rule 17 and Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the plaintiff and they wanted to add the following paragraph: That in case the defendant is considered to be owner of only one-half of the land sold then the plaintiffs as bona fide purchasers for consideration are entitled to claim Rs. 3,000/. in all as price for the one-half share plus damages from the defendant. 3,000/. in all as price for the one-half share plus damages from the defendant. Under the said circumstances it was held that if the consideration fails, a suit for the refund of that consideration will be governed by Article 47 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the limitation for such a (suit is three years from thSe date of the failure of consideration. 8 In the present case facts are totally different. Both the courts below after careful consideration of evidence came to conclusion that the contract was for sale of 5 Kathas land of Revisional Survey plot No. 9 and not of Revisional Survey Plot No. 120. It is admitted case of both the parties that Kebala in question is in respect of Survey plot No. 120. There is also concurrent finding of Courts below that Survey Plot No. 120 belonged and was in possession of plaintiff on the day when present Kebala was registered. It is also submitted that the plaintiff-respondent never came in possession of Survey plot No. 9 for which there was contract of sale and in respect of which consideration amount was paid to the appellant. Hence, I am of the view that both the Courts below are justified in coming to the conclusion that the suit in question is governed by Article 62 of the Limitation Act and not by Article 47 of the Limitation Act. 9. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal and it fails. In the circumstances of the case no order for cost is being passed.