SUKUMARAN Vs. NARAYANA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE lower appellate court was obviously in error, when it held that Art. 14 of the Limitation Act of 1908 applied to the case and not art. 47. Art. 47 deals with a suit by a person bound by an order respecting the possession of immovable property made under the Code of Criminal Procedure, etc. to recover the property comprised in such order; and the time prescribed is three years from the date of final order in the case. Obviously, this must apply to a case like this, which is to recover the property comprised in an order under S. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and where the criminal court held that the respondent was in possession.

(2.) ANOTHER ground on which the lower courts held that the suit was barred by limitation was by using the possession of the receiver appointed by the criminal court against the appellants. In other words, the lower courts held that since the appellants did not establish their possession within twelve years prior to the suit, excluding the period during which the receiver was in possession, the suit was barred. The criminal court held that the respondent was in possession; and it directed the receiver to hand over possession to the respondent. The receiver was put in possession on 2nd June 1943; and he continued in possession till 18th January 1954, when he was directed to hand over possession to the respondent. What the lower courts did was to consider the period during which the receiver was in possession against the appellants to hold that they were not in possession within twelve years prior to suit.

(3.) THE patent error of the lower courts on this aspect will be brought out by an illustration. Suppose there is dispute between A and b; and the property is put in the possession of a receiver by a criminal court. THE receiver continues in possession for over twelve years. (In the present case the receiver had been in possession for a little less than eleven years, though normally the receiver's possession would not have been so long ). THE criminal court finds that A is entitled to possession; and the receiver gives possession to him. In the view of the lower courts, B's suit for recovery of possession will be barred, even if the suit is brought the very day on which the receiver gives possession or the criminal court disposes of the matter.