SHEIKH IMDAN ALI Vs. NAND KUMAR LAL MUNSIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this appeal is whether there is a sufficient acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act to take the case out of the statute of limitation. In 1902 the plaintiff along with certain other persons purchased an 8 annas share of a jagir in Mouzah Jaipur which belonged to Defendant No. 1. It is admitted that the plaintiff did not recover actual possession of the land although there was a delivery of possession through the Court on the 10th of August 1902. The record-of-rights recorded Defendant No. 1 as in possession of the disputed land. The present suit was instituted on the 30th January 1920 and is prima facie barred by limitation. But the plaintiff relies upon a certain acknowledgment made by Defendant No. 1 sometime in June 1913 in a suit which was instituted by Bishun Lochan against him. The acknowledgment is contained in the 12th paragraph of his written statement and is as follows:--"That 8 annas of village Jaipur, out of 16 annas, that is to say, four annas mokurari share of Jamadar Jageswar Dayal Singh and 4 annas share of the Defendant, total 8 annas, together with the disputed property, was sold in execution of a certificate for arrears of road-cess and was purchased by Dinesh Prasad, Gorakhnath, Nandkumar and Tilakdhari Lal, who obtained a certificate. That in spite of the fact that a tenaza was filed in the Settlement Department they did not get possession but were ordered to sue for possession before Civil Court. So long as all these persons are not made parties to the suit, the plaintiff's suit cannot proceed. It is admitted that the property to which reference is made in the 12th paragraph of the written statement is the same as that which is the subject-matter of the present litigation. The learned Judicial Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there is an acknowledgment of the title of Dinesh Prasad, Gorakhnath, Nandkumar and Tilakdhari Lal in this written statement which was filed by Defendant No. 1 in June 1913 sufficient in law to take the case out of the statute of limitation. I am unable to agree with this view. It is undoubtedly admitted that the property was sold in execution of a certificate for arrears of road-cess and was purchased by Dinesh Prasad, Gorakhnath, Nandkumar and Tilakdhari Lal; but an admission that a certain party has purchased the property is not an admission that that party has acquired a good title in the property, for it is quite consistent with an assertion that the purchase was bad in law and did not operate to confer any title on the alleged purchasers. A case is cited in Halsbury's Laws of England, 19th Vol. at p. 132, para. 253, where it was held that an admission that a person has recovered judgment in an action of ejectment is not an admission of title, for it is quite consistent with an assertion that the judgment in ejectment was wrong and that the person had no title at all. In my opinion the principle is equally applicable to a case like this. The admission that the property was purchased amongst others by Nandkumar Lal was coupled with an assertion that the purchasers did not get possession of the land and I am unable to read the statement in para. 12 of the written statement as an acknowledgment of the title of the purchaser. In my opinion the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner should be reversed and the decision of the Court of first instance should be restored.

(2.) I would accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decision of the learned Judge in the Court below and restore the decision of the Court of first instance. The result is that the suit is dismissed with costs in all the Courts.

(3.) I agree.