ABDUL RAHEEM Vs. RAGHUNATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a Judgment of the learned Additional Civil Judge of Ballia dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the Munsif of Rasra, District Ballia.

(2.) On the 21st January, 1921, the predeces-sors-in-title of the respondent executed in favour of the appellant a lease in perpetuity of a price of land, the consideration therefor being the payment of a premuim of Rs. 969 and an annual rent of Rs. 3-1-8. The lease was thereafter registered under the Indian Registration Act. It is common ground that the appellant was put into actual possession of the demised property, and that some eighteen months or two years later he sublet the land to one Ram Dhari, the son of Chirkut deceased. After some earlier litigation, which it is not at present necessary to refer, the appellant in March, 1941, filed a suit under Section 59 of the U. P. Tenancy Act against his lessor and Ram Dhari for a declaration that he was a tenant of the former. On the 26th September, 1941, the suit was dismissed on the ground that Chirkut was the occupancy tenant of the land in 1921 and that the predecessors-in-title of the respondent had no power to execute the lease in favour of the appellant. From this decision the appellant appealed to the Commissioner but his appeal was dismissed on the 9th January, 1942. Thereafter on the 30th December, 1944, the appellant filed a suit against the respondent for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,143, being the amount of the premium Rs. 969 with interest thereon. The trial court held that the appellant had no cause of action. The lower appellate court held that the suit was one to which Article 97 of the Second Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act applied, and that as limitation commenced to run from the 26th September, 1941, the date upon which his earlier suit in the revenue court was dismissed, the suit was barred by time.

(3.) In this court the only question argued has been that of limitation, the appellant's case being that the appropriate Article is Article 116 and that the suit was within time.