PASHUPATI PRATAP SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN DISTRICT BOARD GONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs' appeal which had been dismissed by a learned single Judge on the plea of limitation. The river Eapti separates Gonda and Basti districts and on the banks of the river there are numerous ghats from which ferries operate. On the Basti side of the river there is a ghat known as Befcnar Ghat, the exclusive ferry rights to which were admittedly granted to plaintiff 1, the Raja of Bansi by the Government. Just opposite Beinar Ghat on the Gonda side there is materia ghat which was declared by the Government as a public ferry several years ago. On the same side there is Jigna Ghat. From Betnar Ghat on the opposite side of the river a ferry was operated by Abdul Khalik as a Thekedar of Raja Bahadur Pashupati Pratap Singh of Bansi. In the year 1938 the District Board began to operate a ferry from Jigna Ghat to Betnar Ghat. The plaintiffs claimed that this was an infringement of their right and a notice under Section 192, district Boards Act (Act 10 of 1922), was given and the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed on 27-10-1942. Originally the plaintiffs had claimed both damages and injunction, but the claim for damages was given up and their claim for injunction alone has. survived. The plaintiffs' right was denied on behalf of the District Board but after the decision of the lower appellate Court learned counsel has admitted that the finding of that Court that plaintiff 1 had an exclusive ferry right granted to him at Betnar Ghat by the British Government was a finding of fact. He has further admitted that the action of defendant 1 in allowing other contractors to ply boats is an interference with the plaintiff's rights. Learned counsel also admits that this is a continuing breach. He has, however, relied on Section 29 (2), Limitation Act (Act 9 of 1908 and after its amendment by the Indian Limitation Act 10 of 1922) and has urged that Section 23, limitation Act, is not applicable to a suit of this nature for which a period of six months' limitation has been fixed under Section 192 (3), District Boards Act.

(2.) SECTION 29 (2), Limitation Act (Act 9 of 1908, after its amendment by the Indian Limi-tation act 10 of 1922) reads as follows : "where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the peripd prescribed therefor by the first schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply, as if such period were pres oribed therefor in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law:

(3.) THE U. P. District Boards Act (Act 10 of 1922}, Section 192 (3), provides that: