PRAHLAD SINGH Vs. JAGMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance against the order of the Asstt. Collector, Tijara, dated 22.9.54 whereby he refused to reinstate the applicant on the land in dispute under sec. 7 of the Ordinance.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and examined the record. The Asstt. Collector rejected the application on two grounds firstly, that the applicant and his witness failed to prove that dispossession took place on 18.6.51 as stated in the application and secondly the application which was presented on 7.9.21 was time barred. The learned counsel for the applicant conceded that although the exact date of dispossession as stated in the plaint was not proved, yet the applicant and all his witnesses had stated on oath that he was dispossessed in Asarh which commenced on the corresponding English date of 20.6.51 and ended on 19.7.51. It was therefore argued that even if the last day of Asarh which fell on 19.7.51 was to be taken as the date of dispossession the application presented on 7.9.51 was within limitation. This was opposed by the counsel for the opposite party who argued that the main issue in the case was whether dispossession took place on 18.6.51 and as the applicant failed to prove it, the trial court rightly rejected the application and that it was not necessary either for the trial court or this court to see whether the application was within limitation from any other date disclosed by the applicant and his witnesses in their statements. WE do not find much force in this argument. It is our common experience that, the villagers have no idea of the English months and dates and they know only the names of a few Hindi months in relation to their agricultural operations. Hence it is quite reasonable to infer that the date of the English month as included in the application is the work of the petition writer. The applicant and his witnesses have stated on oath that he was dispossessed in the month of Asarh, a fact which has not been denied by the opposite party or their witnesses in their examination. WE looked into the calender of that year and found that the month of Asarh lasted from 20.6.51 to 19.7.51. It therefore follows that the applicant as dispossessed on any day between these two dates and the application presented by him on 7.9.51 was clearly within three months beyond the last date of Asarh. WE, therefore, hold that the mere fact that the exact date of dispossession as stated in the plaint was not proved it should not defeat the case as the application under sec.7 of the Ordinance was presented within three months from the date of dispossession. The order given by the Asstt. Collector is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded to him for a full trial with the direction that in may be disposed of according to law.