JAI PRAKASH Vs. SATNARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents for a decree for possession of a piece of land described in the plaint. The appellants denied the claim and set. up their own title. The trial court disbelieved the case of the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. On appeal the Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh, reversed the finding on the question of title but dismissed the suitand, consequently, the appeal on the ground of limitation. He held that the plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed land till 31/07/1948 and were dispossessed by the defendants on 1/08/1948. The suit having been filed in 1961 was, therefore, held to be barred by the rule of limitation. The plaintiffs challenged the decision before the High court by filing a second appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment.

(2.) The only question which appears to have been agitated before and decided by the High court was whether the suit had to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that a proceeding for 'partition' under the U. P. Land Revenue Act was going on since 1931 and had continued till 1952, when it stood abated by reason of the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with the Rules framed thereunder and, for that reason, the period of limitation for the present suit must be held to commence in 1952 and not earlier. The suit having been filed in 1961 must, therefore, be held to have been filed within the period of limitation. Agreeing with the plaintiffs, the High court held that, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the period during which the proceeding under the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 between the parties and the other co-sharers remained pending after 1948 was available for computing the period of limitation applicable to the suit and, accordingly, the suit could not be held to have been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The High court also accepted a second ground urged on behalf of the plaintiffs, based on the provisions of the U. P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1950.

(3.) So far as the provisions of the U. P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1950 are concerned, they, clearly are not at all attracted to the present case. The application of this Act is confined to cases referred to in the Schedule to it and a perusal of the Schedule does not leave any room for doubt that this Act is not relevant to the case before us. The High court has not disclosed any basis for relying on this Act and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has not attempted to support the impugned judgment upon this ground. We, therefore, need not detain ourselves on this point any further.