DAULAT RAM Vs. CHHAJU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant purchased the land in dispute in open auction from the Central Government under the sale certificate dated October 3, 1964. The said property was in possession of the defendant at that time and the plaintiff alleging him to be a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- per month filed an application before the Rent Controller for his ejectment. The defendant denied his status as a tenant and claimed to be in possession as owner. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit for possession of the suit property on the basis of ownership.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant who claimed to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of prescriptive right alleging that he was in its adverse possession for the last 30-35 years. The trial Court negatived the plea of the defendant and decreed the suit. On appeal, the finding of the trial Court was reversed and the suit dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide judgment dated January 23, 1970. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has come up in second appeal.

(3.) Their correctness of the judgment under appeal was primarily assailed on the ground that the period during which the property in dispute vested in the Central Government would not be available for counting the period for adverse possession of 12 years and in the alternative the plaintiff would be entitled to claim possession within 60 years, the period of limitation which was available to the Central Government for recovering possession from the defendant. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel is tenable. No doubt in Koylashbashiny Dossee v. Gocoolmani Dossee, 1882 8 ILR(Cal) 230, it was observed that in the case of Government or any person claiming under Government, Article 149 of the Limitation Act provides the period of 60 years; and, it, therefore, follows that the Goverment or an auction -purchaser claiming under the Government must sue within 60 years after the cause of action arises. But this view later on did not find favour as a contrary view was taken in Annada Mohan Roy Chowdhury v. Kina Das, 1924 AIR(Cal) 394, and it was held :-