P PARASURAMAYYA Vs. VRAMACHANDRUDU (DIED) AND TEN ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant before us. He sued for recovery of possession of lands which had been let to the defendants in fasli 1312 for that particular fasli and which the defendants had been holding over without the plaintiff s consent in the subsequent faslis before suit. There were proceedings instituted by the Magistrate at the instance of the defendants under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code on account of the plaintiff s attempt to eject the defendants in the beginning of fasli 1313. The Magistrate took a statement from the plaintiff and then passed orders under Section 145 declaring the defendants to be entitled to retain possession till they were ousted by the decree of a Civil Court. That order was passed in August 1903.

(2.) The present suit for possession was brought in March 1909, more than three years from the date of the Magistrate s order declaring the defendants to be entitled to retain possession and prohibiting the plaintiff from ejecting them till they were ousted by an order of a Civil Court.

(3.) The question is whether the suit is barred by Article 47 of the Limitation Act. The appellant s learned Vakil Mr. Seshachariar contends firstly, that the order of the Magistrate under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code was passed without jurisdiction and hence it is not a binding order, and that Article 47 of the Limitation Act provides for limitation of three years from the date of the order of the Magistrate only if such order was a binding order passed with jurisdiction. Secondly, he contends that the plaintiff had no right to possession as against the defendants during the pendency of the proceedings before the Magistrate, that he acquired such title only by virtue of a notice to quit given by him in December 1903 and that under such circumstances Article 47 has no application.