SHAHUL HAMEED ROWTHER Vs. NAINAMOHAMED ROWTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this second appeal, Mr. T. N. Sundara Iyer, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, challenges the view of both the subordinate courts, that the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation under art. 97 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) SO far as the facts are concerned, there is no controversy at all. The plaintiff admittedly took a lease of the property from the defendant under Ext. P1 dated 18-9-1120 for one year. The terms of the lease appear to be that the plaintiff is to pay a rent of 82 paras annually to the defendant and the plaintiff also paid a sum of Rs. 100 as premium for the lease executed in his favour.

(3.) THERE were appeals by both parties against these decrees and the appeals were also ultimately dismissed. The original suits themselves were decreed on 10-7-1952 and the plaintiff herein deposited a sum of Rs. 575 in order to enable him to continue in possession pending an appeal that he had filed against the decree in the suit. THERE was also another deposit of Rs. 72-4-0 by th e said Rawther representing the cost of the seed etc. used for raising the crop on the land. These amounts were ultimately drawn by the said Rawther on 7-6-56 and notwithstanding the fact that the, plaintiff attempted to get a stay of delivery of the properties, the said Rawther, namely, the plaintiff-decree-holder, actually got possession of the property on 11-9-1952 as will be seen from Ext. P15.