BILAS CHANDRA MUKHERJEE Vs. AKSHAY KUMAR DAS SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Taluk Hari Narayan was originally one property. It was subsequently divided into three separate Taluks, Taluka Hari Narain T. No. 75, Taluka Gauripria T. No. 76, Taluka Rampria T. No. 77. These three taluks lay to the east, north and west of a Government khas mehal named Uddamdi No. 37. There was a river named Goomti or Titas between the khas mehal and these taluks. This river shifted northwards and cut away the lands of the three taluks and as the river receded, these diluviated lands have reformed and the present suit is in respect of lands reformed in. situ of the three Taluks Nos. 75, 76 and 77.

(2.) The Government khas mehal No. 37 was from time to time settled temporarily with the proprietors of the three taluks until 1885 when it was sold for arrears of revenue and purchased by one Bango Chandra Gope as the benamdqr of the contesting defendant who in return for his services gave him an one-anna share in the purchase. We may take it as the result of the findings as admitted at the bar that the possession of the contesting defendants became adverse to the owners of Taluks Nos. 75, 76 and 77 in respect of the disputed lands which they claimed as parts of their newly purchased mehal khas, mehal No. 37, from the year 1835. In this state of things, the residuary share of Taluk Hari Narain No. 75 was sold for arrears of revenue in 1892 and purchased by the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs who subsequently purchased the entire Taluks Gauripria and Rampria in 1894.

(3.) The present suit was brought just within 12 years of the purchase of the residuary share of taluks Hari Narayan by the predecessors-in title of the plaintiffs and the main question in this appeal is whether the suit, so far as that taluk is concerned: is barred by limitation. It is admitted that the sale was under Section 54 of Act XI of 1859. The section says the purchaser shall acquire the share or shares subject to all encumbrances and shall not acquire any rights which were not possessed by the previous owner or owners. The learned Judge has held that, on the principle laid down in the case of Kalanand Singh v. Sara fat Hussein 12 C.W.N. 528 the purchaser "becomes entitled to recover possession of the share in the same manner in which the former owner would have done. * * i.e., the time of adverse possession which has run against the former owner counts against him also." If this view of the law were correct, the adverse possession commencing from 1885 had run for about 7 years up to the date of sale in 1892 and the plaintiffs would have about 5 years more to bring their suit and the suit would be barred as it was not brought within that time. It is necessary, therefore, to examine whether that view of the law is correct.