SAILAJA RANJAN GUPTA Vs. RAM GOPAL DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Some of the principal defendants are the appellants in this appeal which has arisen out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of khas possession of certain lands on declaration of his jote right thereto. The plaintiff's case was that such right had been acquired by him by inheritance and by virtue of his possession for over 12 years. His case was that the defendants were the landlords of the lands in suit together with other lands and that they had dispossessed the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff further alleged that upon such dispossession there were proceedings under Section 144, Criminal P.C., in the course of which a compromise was entered into between the parties but that eventually the said compromise was not given effect to by the defendants, with the result that the plaintiff was obliged to institute the present suit. Some of the defendants contended that they had no connexion whatsoever with the suit land and they did not contest the plaintiff's claim. The contesting defendants however alleged that the plaintiff's predecessor was a chakran tenant in respect of the lands for a long aeries of years and used to hold the suit lands as tenant at a nominal rent. The plaintiff's title as tenant was disputed and it was further alleged that the lands had been abandoned and that thereafter possession had been taken by the said defendants. Several issues were framed one of which was whether the plaintiff had his alleged title to the lands in suit and another was whether the plaintiff was entitled to get khas possession. There were other issues also on the question of limitation, estoppel, maintainability of the suit and on other matters. The Courts below have decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff's right of occupancy in the suit lands and ordering that he would recover khas possession of the same on eviction of the defendants. In the appeal which the defendants have filed the only ground that has been urged is the question of limitation. It has been argued that in view of the provisions of Section 27, Act 8, B.C. 1869, the suit must be regarded as barred inasmuch as it was a suit to recover the occupancy of a land instituted by a tenant against his landlord. The Courts below, it may be said, have overruled this contention. The grounds upon which the said Courts have overruled the said contention were somewhat different, the trial Court holding that the suit was taken out of the purview of that section for three reasons: Firstly, because the landlords contested about the origin of the plaintiff's tenancy and that they denied in their defence the plaintiff's allegation of acquisition of title by inheritance from his predecessors; secondly, that although the defendants had admitted the plaintiff's possession they denied his occupancy; and thirdly, that the defendants in their written statement had raised a contention that the suit lands and some other lands did not form one holding as was alleged in the plaint. The trial Court held that the case was one in which the declaration of plaintiff's title was necessary before it could be held that he was entitled to succeed in recovering possession from the defendants. The Subordinate Judge differed from the Munsif as regards the grounds on which it should be held that the suit was not to be governed by the provisions of Section 27, Act 8, B.C. of 1869, but held that upon the authorities it was clear that the section aforesaid will apply only to possessory suits and not to suits in which a question of title was involved. He therefore disagreed with the Munsif in so far as the other reasons which the latter had given were concerned but held that the suit nevertheless was not barred because it could not be regarded as a mere possessory suit.

(3.) Several decisions have been cited on behalf of the appellants in order to establish the position that the present suit was a suit for recovery of occupancy of land which the plaintiff had instituted as against the defendants who were the landlords. It had been argued that what was alleged on behalf of the defendants was that the plaintiff, though previously he had been a tenant in respect of the land, had abandoned it and the defendants therefore came to be in occupation of the same. These being the facts it has been argued that the suit comes well within the words of Section 27, the said words being all suits to recover the occupancy of any land, from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the persons entitled to receive rent for the same, shall be commenced within the period of one year from the date of accruing of the cause of action, and not afterwards.