LALJI SINGH Vs. RAMRUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants from a decision of the District Judge of Monghyr allowing an appeal from the decision of the Munsif. The substantial question for decision is one of limitation and particularly as to whether Art. 116 or Art. 97, Limitation Act, is applicable to the facts of the case. The suit was to recover the nazarana paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants on the execution of a lease. The lease was dated 9 February, 1922 and it was a grant by the defendants of a perpetual maukarrari lease of an area of 51 bighas of land. The plaintiffs were already in possession of 17 out of these 51 bighas by virtue of a lease to them by Khublal, a brother of the defendants, in 1915, and at the date of the lease their tenure under the lease from Khublal was about to expire. Therefore they wished under the lease to come into possession of a further area of 34 bighas.

(2.) They allege that the defendants never in fact gave them possession in accordance with the terms of the patta of the extra amount of 34 bighas nor indeed of the 17 bighas when the lease from Khublal had expired. Proceedings were taken under Section 145, Criminal P.C., in which one Ram Sanehi claimed the land by virtue of a lease from Khublal and as a result of those proceedings the plaintiffs were excluded from entering into possession of the land in question and it was held that Ram Sanehi was in possession. Revision proceedings were taken to the High Court in respect of the order of the Magistrate and the revision proceedings were finally decided in favour of Ram Sanehi on 6 July 1923.

(3.) The decision of the Magistrate however did not extend to the 17 bighas of which the plaintiffs were already in possession under their arrangement with Khublal. Therefore as to the 34 bighas the plaintiffs never got the benefit of their lease from the defendants. This suit was begun on 12 July 1926 and the plaint was unfortunately extremely badly drafted and the difficulty of deciding this matter has in no small measure been due to the bad drafting of the plaint and the ignorance of law of the person who drafted it. One paragraph of the plaint states that the cause of action arose on 6 July 1923 which was the date of the High Court decision which confirmed the order of the Magistrate excluding the plaintiffs from possession of the 34 bighas but the statement that the cause of action arose on 6 July 1923 is a mere contention of law and is not an allegation of fact. The substantial allegation of fact in the plaint is contained in para. 5 and it is as follows: That defendants 1 and 2 and Hiya Lal Singh had executed the said perpetual patta, dated 9 February 1922, in the month of Magh 1328 Fasli and at that time the bandobtastdar, Jewalal Singh, was in possession of the 34 bighas of land and there were a few months more for the expiry of the term. Therefore the defendants did not at that very time put the plaintiffs in possession of the 31 bighas of land under the said patta and the 17 bighas of land settled previously with the plaintiffs under the said patta. It is in fact an allegation that the defendants have broken their contract under the said patta to put the plaintiffs in possession of the land demised. It is perfectly true that the Court is asked to order the return of the Rupees 1,500 that were paid as nazrana together with interest and that the measure of damages is alleged to be that sum and that no further damages are claimed.