RAM NANDAN NONIA Vs. RAJ KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND Appeal No. 92 of 1950 is brought on behalf of defendant No. 15 against a judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Sasaram, dated the 14th of December, 1949. SECOND Appeal No. 91 of 1950 is presented on behalf of defendants 1, 4 and 10 against the same judgment. In SECOND Appeal No. 91 of 1950 there is a cross-objection filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents.

(2.) THE suit was brought under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, by the plaintiffs in their representative capacity. THE case of the plaintiffs was that plots Nos. .50, 91 and 156 are village chaurs, plots Nos. 34 and 150 were used as ahars and plots 139, 141 and 143 were used as grazing fields by the villagers. It was also claimed that on plot No. 143 there was a Brahmasthan and on plots 139 and 141 there was a Gobardhan Asthan. It was alleged that the defendants in conspiracy with each other had taken possession of these plots and cultivated crops thereon. THE plaintiffs also claimed that all the plots in dispute were recorded as gairmazrua-am in the survey record-of rights. Defendants 1, 4 and 10 contested the suit on the ground that the lands were not gairmazrua-am and that they were in possession of these lands for more than 12 years and that they had acquired title by adverse possession. Defendant No. 15 made a similar claim with regard to plots 139, 141 and 143. THE trial Court found upon these rival contentions that defendants 1, 4 and 10 had established their title by adverse possession to portions of plots 34, 150 and 143. THE trial Court also found that defendant No. 15 had failed to prove adverse possession with regard to any portion of the disputed land. On appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court has found that defendants 1, 4 and 10 had proved adverse possession with regard to a portion of plot No. 143 and the Munsif was wrong in holding that defendants 1, 4 and 10 had proved adverse possession as regards any portion of plots 34 and 150. As regards defendant No. 15, the lower appellate Court took the view that no adverse possession had been proved with regard to any portion of plots 139, 141 and 143.

(3.) TO a suit of this description we do not think that the provisions of Article 142 of the Limitation Act apply. We consider that the case falls within the provision of Section 23 of the limitation Act which deals with continuing breaches or wrongs and is in the following terms: