(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision in short are that Mst. Marium Bai mortgaged her 8 anna share in the Zamindari village Bir Madhan with Col. Kashirao Pawar. On the abolition of the Zamindari, the village vested in the government. According to Section 18 (2) of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari abolition Act (Act No. 13 of 1951), Col. Kashirao Pawar filed an application before the Claims Officer, specifying the particulars of his secured debt. In the course of these proceedings Mst. Marium Eai and Col. Kashirao Pawar arrived at a compromise, the terms of which were that Mst. Marium Bai would sell her house situated in Phalke Bazar for Rs. 3500/- and that in addition to it she would pay him Rs. 1000/- out of the compensation of the mortgaged village. This compromise was recorded by the Compensation Officer on 19-8-52 and an order was passed in terms of this compromise. On the basis of this order Col. Kashirao Pawar filed an application under Section 27 of the Act on 4-12-53 before the Civil Judge, Lashkar, and sought a decree for the sale of the house in question. A number of objections were raised by the other party. The important ones were that the order of the Claims Officer sought to be enforced under Section 27 of the Act was not an order under Section 26 of the Act and therefore unenforceable. It was also contended that the application under section 27 was filed beyond one year of the statutory period given in Section 27 of the Act. The trial Court decided both the objections against Mst. Marium, who has now filed this revision.
(2.) I shall first decide the question of limitation which appears to have received scanty attention at the hands of the lower Court.
(3.) THE order sought to be enforced under Section 27 of the Madhya Bharat zamindari Abolition Act was passed on 19-8-52. The application under Section 27 of the above Act was presented on 21-12-53. Section 27 of the said Act requires that an application under Section 27 should be given within a year of the order. A perusal of the above dates would show that the application was given about sixteen months after the order and thus it is clearly time-barred. The trial Court however has extended the period by applying Section 19 of the Limitation Act. But i am afraid that the decision is in clear breach of the provision of law.