Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.
1. The points raised in this appeal are that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the suit was not barred under the provisions of Article 136 of the Limitation Act, and also that the Appellate Court was wrong in reversing the first Court's finding as to the passing of the consideration and the benami nature of the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants.
2. As regards the last two points we think that the findings of the Appellate Court are unassailable in second appeal. The onus lay upon the defendants to prove that consideration had passed, and that the transaction was benami and in the evidence the lower Courts found against the defendants.
3. As regards the point of limitation we think that the appellant's vakil is wrong in contending that the case falls under Article 136 of the Limitation Act. It is true that the defendants' vendors were not in possession at the time of the sale, but we think that the article is not intended to apply to a suit brought against the vendors themselves upon their recovering possession. It appears to us that the lower Appellate Court was right in applying Article 144 of the Aot. That being so, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Court below. The appeal will be dismissed but without costs, as no one has appeared for the respondent.