JANAKI NATH SAHA Vs. BAIKUNTHA NATH GHATTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this second appeal seeks to recover possession of certain land which had been mortgaged to him by the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and which he had purchased at a sale held on the 17 July 1905, in execution of a decree on foot of the mortgage. The sale was confirmed on the 18 August. On the 15 December following possession, of the land was delivered to the plaintiff, and the present suit was brought on the 14 December 1917, that is, more than 12 years after the sale was confirmed, but just within 12 years of the date on which possession was delivered. The two Courts below have concurred in finding that possession was delivered symbolically, or, in other words, that the plaintiff was given not actual but formal possession of the land.

(2.) Both Courts have, therefore, concurred in rejecting the allegations of the plaintiff that he obtained actual possession, that he took settlement of the land from the landlord and that he had afterwards been in possession through burgadars until he was dispossessed by the defendants in Magh 1318.

(3.) The only defendants who contested the suit were the defendants Nos. 7, 8 and g who are the appellants before us in this second appeal. One of the defences which they set up was that the suit was barred by limitation general and special. Both Courts conclude, though their reasoning is somewhat different, that the defence of limitation is not tenable and there are, therefore, concurrent decrees in the plaintiff's favour.