SHAIKH RAFIC Vs. BHAGABAN CHANDAR DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit claims as reversioner after the death of Joy Tara, widow of one Ganga Prosad Dhar, and the defendants claim under certain conveyances said to have been executed during her life-time. The plaintiff s claim has been decreed by both the lower Courts and it is the defendant who now appeals. We have heard this appeal at great length for the greater part of the day with the result that, in my opinion, that decision which has been arrived at by both the lower Courts is the correct one.

(2.) The decision of the Subordinate Judge has been attacked upon two grounds, first, that of limitation, it being contended that the defendants as the purchasers-in-interest had been in adverse possession for more than 50 years and that thereby they acquired a title which was not defeasible by the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court has held that the title of Joy Tara and of the reversioner was not extinguished by limitation and this finding has been impugned as erroneous in law The way in which this point is sought to be made out is this. The learned Judge has stated that Act IX of 1871 came into operation on the 1st July 1871 and if that be so, then it is conceded that there is nothing in the point which the appellant raises before us. But it is contended that the learned Judge is wrong in holding that the Act came into operation on the 1st July 1871 and that, upon a proper construction of the Act, it should be held that it came into operation on the 1st day of April 1873.

(3.) Now, in the first place, it is to be observed that even if this argument were correct, it will only affect the first of the conveyances to which I have referred; for, according to the facts recited, after the suit of 1854 the reversioners alleging that they were in possession are said to have sold 2-annas to Hamidullah or Furkhan on the 12th January 1860 and 4-annas are said to be sold by the same persons to the same parties on the 18th December 1863, and it was after this date that the remaining 10-annas were granted out to these persons in ijara. Even if the Act be held to have come into force on the 1st April 1873, 12 years had not elapsed at that time from the date of the second and third of the conveyances to which I have referred.