MEHAR ALI Vs. KALUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri Sripat Narain Singh, learned advocate for the appellant, has raised two contentions in this appeal. The first is that Article 47 of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply to a suit for joint possession while his second contention is that the lower appellate court went wrong in observing that the right of the plaintiff as a bhumidhar was extinguished or that the defendant had become a sole bhumidhar.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff claimed relief for a joint possession as a co-bhumidhar of the land in dispute on the allegations that the plots were joint tenancy of the parties from the time of their ancestors and that the parties became joint Bhumidhars of these plots on the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In the former litigation between the parties the revenue court held that the plaintiff was a joint tenant and as wrong entries continued the present suit was brought. The defence was that the defendant was the sole bhumidhar and in any case the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) Both the courts below have held that Rajab All and Kalut, were joint tenants of the plots in dispute. The trial court further held that the parties were co-bhumidhars but the court passed a decree in favour of the appellant only for joint possession and not for an injunction. The lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the present suit having been filed more than three years after the orders in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. the suit was barred by limitation. It has further been observed towards the close of the judgment that the plaintiff is not a co-bhuraidhar while the defendant is the sole bhumidhar. It is against these findings that the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff and two contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellant.