GOPI Vs. RAMGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, dated 19 -1 -55 whereby he reversed the judgment and decree passed by the S.D.O., Hindaun and held that the suit was not barred by limitation and should be disposed of on merits.

(2.) We have gone through the record of the case and heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person. The plaintiffs respondents filed a suit under sec. 90 of the Former Jaipur Tenancy Act alleging that in Svt. 2001 they had let out their land measuring 24 bighas and 10 biswas in village Hingot, Tehsil Hindaun to the other plaintiffs viz. Indraj and Kishori for purposes of cultivation and a patta and kabuliat in respect of the land in dispute was also executed accordingly. It was averred that the appellants unlawfully prevented Indraj and Kishori from occupying and cultivating this land which was duly let out to them by the respondents Ramgopal & Gopichand and eventually the appellants themselves forcibly cultivated the same. The plaintiff respondent, therefore, prayed for the ejectment of the appellant. The appellant -defendant contested this suit on the ground that they were the khatedars of the respondent and had been cultivating it. It was also urged that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court framed certain issues including the one as to whether the suit was barred by limitation. After hearing the arguments on this issue, the trial court observed that the suit was instituted after more than three years (i.e. on 13 -9 -52) after the date of the alleged dispossession in Svt. 2001 corresponding to 1944 -45 and was, therefore, liable to dismissal as it was not presented within the prescribed period of limitation given in Art. 11 of Schedule I,Group B of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts,(Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. In appeal by Ramgopal and Gopichand the learned Additional Commissioner, however took a different view. He held that so far as the respondents Indraj and Kishori were concerned, their claim was governed by sec 90 (b) of the Jaipur State Tenancy Act for which a period of 3 years was prescribed in the said Act and since it was filed after 3years it was rightly held to be barred by limitation. As regards the claim of Ramgopal and Gopichand respondents, the learned Additional Commissioner held that they being the landlords of the land in dispute, they could bring a suit for the ejectment of the appellants who were trespassers within 12 years from the date of trespasses their case was covered by sec.90 (a)of the Jaipur Tenancy Act for which the prescribed period of limitation of 12 years as given in Art. 10, Group I Schedule I of the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. Accordingly he accepted the appeal of Ramgopal and Gopichand and remanded the case to the trial court with the direction that the suit be tried and decided on merits.

(3.) The defendants have now come in appeal before us. The validity of the judgment of the lower -appellate court has been challenged before us mainly on the ground that the suit of the respondents in which both the landlords and their tenants were joined as plaintiffs was filed under sec. 90(b) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act for which the period of limitation prescribed therein was 3 years and as it was filed after the expiry of this period the suit was rightly dismissed by the trial court. The learned counsel for the respondents urged that sec. 90 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act contemplates two classes of suits. Under sec.90(a),a suit can be filed by the landlord for the ejectment of a trespasser if he has taken possession of any land without lawful authority while under sec.90(b)a trespasser can be used for ejectment only by a tenant to whom land was duly let out by his landlord. The period of limitation prescribed for the former is 12 years and for the latter it is 3 years as given in Arts, 10 and 11 respectively of Group B, Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. We have carefully examined the provisions of sec. 90(a)of the Act,read with Arts. 10 and 11 of the Group B of the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. We find that Art. 10 provides for the ejectment of a trespasser taking possession without lawful authority. It is in substance the same as sec. 90(a) of the Jaipur State Tenancy Act. They both contemplate cases in which the trespasser takes possession of the land without the consent or lawful authority of the person entitled to admit him. In such cases, the landlord can bring a suit for the ejectment of such a tresspasser within 12 years from the date when the act of trespass is committed. If a tenant, to whom the land is duly let out by his landlord, is prevented by a trespasser from occupying and taking possession of it, he is to bring a suit for ejectment within 3 years from the date when the act of trespass in committed. In the present case, the respondents case is that they are the landlords of this land and they had let out the same to the other two plaintiffs namely Indraj and Kishori. It is also admitted by the appellants in their written statement that Vyas Ramgopal and Gopichand plaintiff -respondents are the landlords of this land. In view of this clear admission of the appellants there is no doubt that Ramgopal and Gopichand are the landlords and they could file a suit against the appellants under Art.10 of the Schedule within a period of 12 years for the ejectment of the appellant to whom according to the averments in the plaint the land was never lawfully given for purposes of cultivation and who took possession of the land without any authority. In these circums -tances, we hold that the respondents suit was within limitation and the lower -appellate court rightly directed trial court to try it and decide it on merits. The result is that the appeal is without any force and it is hereby rejected.