PHOOLCHAND HARISHANKAR Vs. MALTHOOPRASAD JAGANNATHPRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises the question whether to the suit, out of which it arises, Article 12 of the Limitation Act or any other Article, including Article 95, of that Act is applicable.

(2.) BY a sale deed dated 24th June 1953, the plaintiff acquired for a sum of Rs. 1,000 the western half share of occupancy plot khasra No. 80 area 13.57 acres, rental Rs. 49 -8 -0, of village Basadehi from the defendant and his brothers, who continued to be the holders of the other half share. Even so, the plaintiff was not shown in the annual papers for 1954 -55 as a co -holder of the plot. The second instalment of rent due in respect of the plot for 1954 -55 remained unpaid. The village Patwari submitted a list of defaulters to the Naib -Tahsildar, who, having registered case No. 79 of 1954 -55, started proceedings for recovery of the arrear due in respect of the plot against Jiwanlal, a brother of the defendant. At his instance, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Narsimhapur, sanctioned on 6th August 1955 attachment and sale of khasra No. 80 of village Mahal pura. The proclamation for sale of that plot was published in Mahalpura as well as in Basadehi and it was sold on 3rd March 1956. The defendant's bid of Rs. 250 was accepted and the sale was subsequently confirmed by the Sub -Divisional Officer on 24th April 1956. The plaintiff's belated application for setting it aside on the ground that it was illegal was rejected on 8th August 1957.

(3.) MY attention was drawn to section 149 of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, and it was urged that, all claims on the ground of irregularity were barred. Since the sale was published and held after the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, came into force on 1st October 1955, the matter must be regarded as governed by rule 33 of the Second Schedule to that Code, which, however, re -enacts the relevant provision under the repealed Act. Rule 33 ibid reads as follows: (