SATISH CHANDRA SINHA Vs. MUNJANALI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal on behalf of the defendants in a suit for rent. The dispute is limited to a six-annas share of the property which the plaintiff claims to have purchased on the 15th May 1905 at a sale held under Regulation VIII of 1819. The defence is substantially two-fold, namely, first, that the claim is barred by res judicata, as a suit by a previous patnidar in 1895 failed on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the then plaintiff and the defendants was not established; and secondly, that the claim is barred by limitation.

(2.) In so far as the first ground is concerned, it is entirely untenable. The plaintiff is a purchaser at a sale under Regulation VIII of 1819. Consequently, although his position may not be precisely that of a purchaser at a sale for arrears of revenue Moizuddi Biswas v. Ishan Chandra 13 C.L.J. 293 7 Ind. Cas. 849 : 16 C.W.N 706 yet he is not privy in estate to the defaulting proprietor and he does not derive his title from him, as, under Section 11 of the Regulation, he has acquired he property free of all encumbrances that might have been created upon it by the act of the defaulter, his representatives or assignees. This is clear from the cases of Tara Prasad Mitter v. Ram Nursingh Mitter 6 B.L.R. Ap. 5 : 14 W.R. 283 and Radha Cobind Koer v. Rakhal Das Mukherji 12 C. 82 at p. 90. The first contention, therefore, fails.

(3.) In so far as the second contention is concerned, it is equally groundless. It is argued, not that the claim for rent is barred by limitation, but that the title to recover rent has been extinguished by adverse possession on the part of the defendants. Now, as already stated, the plaintiff purchased the property on the 15th May 1905 and the case of Nuffer Chandra Pal Chowdhry v. Rajendra Lal Goswami 25 C. 167 shows that if an action in ejectment were brought, limitation would be taken to run against the plaintiff only from the date when his purchase became final. There is, therefore, no substance in the second contention.