1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a Mahant Baba Naraih Das, to recover was property alienated in the titite of his predecessor, Baba Bajrang Das: The sole question argued before us is one of, limitation. There were a number of different transfers, some made by Bajrang Das himself and some by two persons, Ram Dayal and Gulab, who are said to have been close intimates of Bajrang Das and to have effected certain sales and mort; gages of the was property with his per, mission. The various transfers that have taken place are all set out in the judgment of the Court below. All of them except one are' within twelve years of the date of-suit, which was 7th June 1919. The first transfer was a usufructuary mortgage of property including the shop in suit by Ram Dayal and Gulab in favour of Inayat-mllah. Inayat-ullah's successor-in-title was Sewa Ram, and the defendants are the succesors-in-title of the latter. On the 26th of June 1907, within twelve years of suit, this mortgage was redeemed by Ram Dayal and Gulab by execution of a sale-deed of property other than the property in suit, The learned Judge of the Court below has decreed the suit on the ground that s, 10 of the Limitation Act applies, and that; there is no -period of limitation. The learned Judge cannot have read carefully the section on which he relies, for Section 10 does not apply to a suit, against assign's for valuable consideration such as the defendants are. The respondent, however, supports the decree of the Court below on the ground that the suit, is within the period of twelve years' limitation, under Art, 144, which Article the Privy Council declared to be applicable in such cases By their decision in Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Balusami Ayyar 65 Ind. Cas. 161 : 44 M. 831 : (1921) M.W.N. 449 : 41 M.L.J. 346 : 3 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 62 : 15 L.W. 78 : 30 M.L.T. 66 : 3 P.L.T. 245 : 48 1. A. 302 : 26 C.W.N. 537 : 24 Bom. L.R. 629 : 20 A.L.J. 497 : (1932) A.I.R. (P.C.) 123 (P.C.). The appellants contend that they are entitled to date their possession, from 19th August 1906. The answer to this contention, is that, their mortgage a possession under the deed of 1906 was put an and to by the sale-deed of 26th June 1907. The separate, usufructuary mortgage of the same shop executed on 26th June 1907 is the real starting point for limitation in this case, and that mortgage was. executed within twelve years of the suit. We, therefore, uphold the decree of the Court below, though on a different ground, and dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court lees on the higher scale.