PHULUWA Vs. LAXMICHAND SITABRAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent brought a suit against the appellants for an agricultural land on the basis of patta granted by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff o 231-1946. The patta was registered. The plaintiff, as advised, gave a notice to the defendants on 26-3-1946 to deliver possession to him. Since the defendants did not deliver possession to him he instituted a suit under Sees. 325 and 326 of the Qanoon Mal before the Tahsildar, Bhilsa. That matter went up to the Board of Revenue. The plaintiff did not succeed'there because it was held that he had not been given possession and as such he could not bring a suit under Sec. 326 or 325 of the Qanoon Mal. The plaintiff then brought this civil suit for possession and also claimed mosne profits. In the alternative the plaintiff claimed a decree for the return of consideration for the patta viz. Rs. 495/-. The suit was instituted on 22-101954. The defendants resisted the suit inter alia on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try it; that the suit was barred by time; and that the matter was res judicata,

(2.) The learned trial Judge held that the suit was competent and that it was not res judicata, but it was dismissed as time barred, by applying Article 113 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) On appeal the Additional District Judge Bhilsa held that Article 144 of the Limitation Act applied and the first prayer, but not the second prayer, made in the suit was within limitation. He also affirmed the decision of the trial Judge on the other two questions. He, therefore, set aside the decree of the trial Judge and remanded the case for trying the remaining issues.