ARMAN PEADA Vs. MANIK SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question involved in this appeal is whether the suit out of which this appeal arises is barred by the special limitation under Art. 3, Schedule III, of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiffs alleged that they had been dispossessed in Pons 1323 of their raiyati land by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, at the instigation of the Raja, the defendant No. 3, and with the help of defendants Nos. 4 to 7. The suit has been decreed by the Courts below, overruling the objection that the suit was barred. The lower Appellate Court held that the special law of limitation had no application to the case, as the dispossession was by defendant No. 1 after the settlement by the Raja and after the execution of the kabuliyat in favour of the Raja. It is found, however, that the dispossession took place in 1317, and not in 1323 as alleged in the plaint.

(2.) As stated above, the plaintiffs come to Court on the allegation that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 with the assistance of the defendants Nos. 4 to 7, who have been found to be the burkundazes of the Raja, and instigated by the Raja (defendant No. 3), forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiffs from the land.

(3.) There is no doubt that where a person has been dispossessed by another who subsequently takes settlement from, or is recognized as tenant by, the landlord, and the landlord has had no band in the ouster, such dispossession does not amount to dispossession by the landlord, and in such a case the plaintiff will not be barred by Art. 3 of Schedule III, See Ramijulla V/s. Ishab Dhali 6 C.W.N. 702 : 29 C. 610 (F.B.), nor in a case where the landlord simply favoured the dispossession by a third party See Basanta Kumari V/s. Nanda Ram 20 Ind. Cas. 350 : 17 C.W.N. 1149 : 18 C.L.J. 86. In the case of Kedar Nath Mondal V/s. Mohesh Chandra Khan 46 Ind. Cas. 787 : 28 C.L.J. 216 the learned Judges were inclined to hold, on the authority of the above case, that the Artiste does not apply where the dispossession was by a person under an authority from the landlord. And where the landlord himself bad no hand in the ouster and some person on his behalf, without having any authority to do so, gives an amalnamah to a person who dispossesses the raiyat, it has been held that the case does not come under Art. 3. See Sheikh Eradut V/s. Daloo Sheikh 1 C.W.N. 573.