MUNSIRAM Vs. ATMARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent (plaintiff) had filed a suit for possession of his rayati land, khasra No. 192/2, area 18 acres, rental Rs. 13/ -, situate at mouza Mudpar (Dakhni) in Kanker tahsil against the appellant (defendant). The claim was dismissed by the Trial Court, but decreed in appeal by the lower appellate Court. The defendant has now come up in second appeal.

(2.) THE facts, in short, are that Sarha, the deceased father of the plaintiff, was the thekadar of village Mudpar (Dakhni) where the land in suit is situate. On his death, the land was recorded in the revenue records as the thakurai sir land of the plaintiff By a receipt (Ex. D. -2), dated 10th November 1946, his uncle acting on his behalf (the plaintiff is a minor), agreed to let out the land to the deceased Hirasingh, the father of the defendant, for a period of fifteen years, or till the period of the thekadari on an annual rent of Rs. 20/ -. Hirasingh and, after him, the defendant, have been in continuous possession of the suit land under the lease. On the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. I of 1951), the thekadari rights of the plaintiff over the village came to an end: and as the lease of the defendant was coterminus with the thekadari rights, it also came to an end. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit for possession of the land in suit, on the ground that the lease had come to an end and that he had also been declared a raiyat of the suit land by order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 2nd January 1953, passed under the Act.

(3.) AS the lease evidenced by the receipt (Ex. D -2) was for the period of the thekadari and as the thekadari rights came to an end on the coming into force of the Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, it was rightly not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the lease of the defendant -appellant had not come to an end on 1st April 1951. He however, contended that as from that date, the defendant became a trespasser; and as the suit was not filed within three years of that date (1st April 1951), it was barred by limitation under item 1 of limitation for suits in the Second Schedule to the C. P. States Land Tenure Order, 1949. That item says that limitation for suit 'for possession of a holding by a person claiming to be a tenant from which he has been dispossessed or excluded from possession by any person is three years, and the time from which period begins to run is the date of dispossession or exclusion. This special period of limitation thus is for a person, who claims possession of a holding, claiming to be a tenant. 'Tenant' has been defined in CI. 2 (k) of the order to mean a person in possession of a holding under a lease or set of conditions from a tenure -holder. The plaintiff in the instant case did not claim to hold the land from any tenure holder, but from the state. He has also been recognized as a raiyat by an order of the Dept. Commissioner under the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, mahals, Alienated lands) Act, 1950. 'Raiyai' is defined in CI. 2 (g) of the C. P. States Land Tenure Order, 1949, to mean 'a person who holds land from the State or from a tenure -holder and is or but for a contract would be liable to pay land revenue or rent for such land to the State or to the tenure holder, as the case may be.' In my opinion, item 1 of limitation for suits in the Second Schedule of the order has no application to a suit for possession of a holding by a person claiming to be a raiyat from which he has been dispossessed or excluded from possession by any person. The suit would, therefore, be governed not by the special law of limitation under the C. P. States Land Tenure Order, 1949 but by the provisions of the Limitation Act. It is not contended that the suit was barred under the Limitation Act.