AJUDH RAJ Vs. MOTI S O MUSSADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave is granted. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants, and dismissing their suit, on the ground of being barred by limitation.

(2.) The subject-matter of the present case is agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh belonging to one Sham Sunder, the original plaintiff since dead, who was the father of the appellant No. 1 and the grandfather of the appellants Nos. 2 and 3. The defendant respondent, Moti, alleging to be a sub-tenant cultivating the land, claimed the benefits u/ S. 27(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Notice was issued to Sham Sunder which according to his case was not served on him. The claim of Moti was accepted, amount of compensation payable u/ S. 27(4) of the Act was determined by the Compensation Officer and consequential orders were passed in his favour. The present slit was filed by Sham Sunder challenging the aforesaid orders on the allegation that Moti was merely a labourer employed by him and he never cultivated the disputed land and he, therefore, was not entitled to the acquisition of the proprietary right u/ S. 27(4) of the Act. The suit was resisted by the defendant. Both the trial Court and the appellate Court, accepted the plaintiff's case (supra) and concurrently held that Moti was not a sub-tenant and hence, the order passed by the Revenue Officer in his favour u/ S. 27(4) of the Act was without jurisdiction. The plea of limitation was rejected and the suit was decreed holding that Sham Sunder being the tenant in possession was entitled to the right u /S. 27(4) of the Act.

(3.) In a further appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant contended before the High Court that the suit having been filed after a period of more than three years from the day of the order u/ S. 27(4) of the Act was barred by limitation. The Court agreed with him and dismissed the suit by the impugned judgment. The High Court did not deal with any other aspect in the case, stating that the defendant had not urged any other point in support of the second appeal.