BALARAM BHOI Vs. MALATI BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short and important point that arises for determination in this second appeal is whether Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to the facts of this case, which may be shortly stated.

(2.) One Hemachandra Behra who died in the year 1948 had a son named Suryananda and a daughter named Taramani defendant No. 6. During Hemachandra's life time, he had given his daughter Taramaai in marriage to Banamali (defendant No. 7). Suryananda died some time after the death of Hemachandra. Suryananda's widow is Malati (defendant No. 1). On 10-4-1947 one Tagannath Jena sold 0.52 acre of land to defendant No. 6 who being then a minor was represented in the transaction by her father guardian Hemachandra. Ext. B is the sale deed. On 12-4-1947, one Gada Bewa sold 0.76 acre of land to defendant No. 6 who being minor was represented by her husband defendant No. 7. Ext. C is the sale deed. On 17-11-1947, Hemachandra executed a registered Patta in respect of 2.72 acres of land in favour of his daughter defendant No. 6 who being then still a minor was represented by her husband-guardian defendant No. 7. Ext. A is the Patta.

(3.) After the abolition of the estates in 1952 by which time Hemachandra was dead, his son as the proprietor of the touzi in which the lands covered by Exts. A, B and C are situated, submitted a rent roll to the Anchal Adhikari in which defendant No. 6 was shown as recorded tenant in respect of those lands. On the strength of the rent roll so submitted, defendant No. 6 was recorded as a tenant in respect of those properties. On 24-4-1962, defendant No. 6 Taramani executed the sale deed Ext. 1 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2, in respect of 2.79 acres of lands which admittedly form a part of the lands covered by Exts. A, B and C.