LAWS(ALL)-1971-12-20

NANHOO Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

Decided On December 07, 1971
NANHOO Appellant
V/S
BOARD OF REVENUE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS ap peal has been filed by the defendant to a suit for ejectment under Section 202 (f) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Smt. Beti Kunwar and Pra tap Bhan Singh, the respondents instituted the suit on the ground that the defendant appellant was the Asami of the land in dispute and that the plaintiffs proposed to bring the land under then: personal culti vation. The appellant contested the suit. He urged that the suit was barred by time because Pratap Bhan Singh, one of the plaintiffs, became a major and consequent ly his disability determined, more than three years prior to the suit. The trial Court accepted the defence and dismissed the suit. This decision was upheld in ap peal. The plaintiffs went up to the Board of Revenue in second appeal and succeed ed. The Board set aside the decrees of the authorities below and decreed the suit. The appellant then instituted a writ peti tion which failed. Hence the present ap peal.

(2.) THERE is no dispute between the parties that on the date of vesting the ap pellant became an Asami under the Zamin dari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The plaintiffs relied upon sub-clause (ii) of clause (f) of Section 202 of the Act. If that clause were applicable, the suit will be within time. This provision reads:-

(3.) THE contention on behalf of the defendant-appellant is that the moment one of the land-holders became a major, his disability as a minor determined. As soon as the disability determined, the land holder became entitled to institute a suit for ejectment under clause (f) (ii) of Sec tion 202. For such a suit the relevant rule prescribed a period of limitation of three years. On the expiry of three year's period, the Asami became a sirdar under Section 204. In the present case, it was admitted between the parties that Pratap Bhan Singh became major more than three years prior to the institution of the present suit. In this situation, it was urged that the appellant having become sirdar, could not be ejected under Section 202.