IBRAHIM KHAN Vs. ABDUL AHAD KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for profits. The only question is one of limitation. The profits in question wore for the year 1327 fasli and the suit was filed on 31 July 1923. If these profits could have been collected on a date later than 31 July 1920 the suit is within time, but if the last date for the collection of the profits is prior to 31 July 1920 the suit is beyond time. Section 163, Act 2 of 1901, lays down that in the absence of any determination of date by the Settlement Officer or of an express agreement among the cosharers, profits shall be divisible on such dates as the Local Government may prescribe, and the Local Government has prescribed those dates by rules framed under Section 203 of the same Act, The date prescribed by the Local Government is 1 August unless some other date has bean agreed upon by the persons concerned or determined and recorded by a Settlement Officer.

(2.) In the present case the patwari has given evidence that the cosharers divide their profits in August, but the learned District Judge has relied upon the " das-tur- dabi " representing the old wajibul-arz of this village which says that the last day for the division of profits is the last day of Asarh. In the year 1920 the [last day of Asarh was 1 July. In my opinion the District Judge is right in holding that this must be taken to be the date determined for this village. No doubt the " dastur- dehi " is based on an agreement between the cosharers themselves, and if reliance was placed only on the agreement evidence could be given to show that the agreement was no longer acted upon. But in my opinion the " dastur-dehi " is more than this. It amounts to a determination and record of the date made by the Settlement Officer. In my opinion, therefore the decision of the Court below is correct, and I dismiss this appeal with costs.

(3.) I should like to note that there has been an astonishing delay in disposing of this appeal by the Court below. The suit was filed on 31 July 1923. It was decided by the Assistant Collector on 22 April, 1924. It was remanded on appeal by the District Judge on 31 March 1925. The remand finding is dated 14th December 1925. The remand finding should have bean taken up at once by the District Judge. Instead, of this I find that his decision is dated 18 May 1928.