TAMIZUDDIN Vs. ASHRUB ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I regret that in this case I am unable to follow the ruling in Bhagabati Churn Roy V/s. Luton Mondal (1902) 7 C.W.N. 218. I do not think the case is governed by Art. 3 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act. The suit is one for the establishment of title and recovery of possession it cannot be regarded as merely a suit for possession, under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. I agree with the referring Judges that the plaintiffs being non-occupancy raiyats, who have apparently been allowed by their landlords to hold over after the expiry of the term for which the and was leased to them, have a good title to the land, entitling them to recover possession of it against any one, who is not shown to have a better title than themselves. Here the defendants are mere trespassers. As I concur in the reasoning and conclusion pf the referring Judges, I do not think it necessary to say more. I may also say I have read Mr. Justice Ghose's judgment, in which I also concur. I answer the first question in the negative: the second question in the circum. stances of the case becomes unimportant and does not practically arise. Prinsep, J.

(2.) This is a suit brought by a non-occupancy raiyat for possession of land, of which, he has been illegally dispossessed by the defendant, who found to be a trespasser.

(3.) The point referred to this Full Bench is what is the limitation for such a suit, and the reference has been made because the referring Judges do not agree with Bhagabati Charan Roy V/s. Luton Mondal (1902) 7 C.W.N. 218, in which it was held that such a suit is under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and must be brought within sis months from the alleged illegal dispossession.