(1.) This appeal raises an interesting question, a question which has not arisen and has not been considered by this Court, strictly speaking, in any of the cases, which have been brought to our notice. There are, however, decisions of other High Courts on this particular point but they are conflicting and that gives an added interest to the said point before us.
(2.) The suit was brought, on February 18, 1952, by the present appellant for declaration of his title to the suit-lands and recovery of possession of the same from the defendants, or, in the alternative, for cancellation and setting aside of a certain Kobala (Deed of Sale), obtained from his mother by the defendant No. 1, with the consequential relief of possession. Upon the above reliefs, further relief in the shape of mesne profits was also prayed for. The suit was contested by the defendants. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit but, on appeal, it was dismissed, primarily, on the ground of limitation and It is this point of limitation, which is the real and stubbornly contested point before us.
(3.) The facts, giving rise to the present litigation, lie within a short compass and they may be stated as follows: The suit lands belonged to the plaintiff's father Bibhuti Bhusan Pan, who died in Ashar 1340 B. S., leaving him surviving his widow pro forma defendant No. 9, who was pregnant at the time, and eventually, gave brith to the present plaintiff, as a poshumous child, on 10th Aswin 1340 B. S. During the interval, however, that is, in Bhadra 1340 B. S., several fraudulent and collusive documents were obtained by the defendants from the plaintiffs mother, including a Kobala, dated 9th Bhadra 1340 B. S., in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of the present suit tends, and they went into possession of the said lands on the basis of the same. The plaintiff attained majority on 10th Aswin 1358 B. S. and, on the 26th following, he demanded back possession from the defendants and, upon their refusal, brought the instant suit on 18th February 1952.