PAKKI ADINARAYANA Vs. NAMBURU SURAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant before us. The suit related to two items. The contesting defendants as to item 1 are defendants 1, 2 and 5. The contesting defendant as to item 2 is the 3 defendant. The lands are claimed by plaintiff as jirayati lands in the Zamindari of Vizianagram. As to item 2, the 3 defendant claims it as his inam. The Maharaja of Vizianagram is therefore also impleaded as the 4 defendant.

(2.) The Courts below dismissed the suit as barred by limitation under Art. 47 of the Limitation Act. In the year 1907 there was a charge for criminal trespass in respect of these items by the predecessor-in-title of defendants 1, 2 and 5 against the vendors of the plaintiff and the matter ended in favour of the former (Ex. D, which was confirmed on appeal in 1908, Ex. IX). The present suit is filed in April, 1920 more than ten years after Exs. D and IX.

(3.) As to item 1, we agree with the Courts below that thc suit is barred. Mr. T. Ramachandra Rao, who appeared for the appellant-plaintiff, contended that Article 47 of Act XV of 1877 applied only to orders under Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and not to an order under Section 522. The article refers to order under Chapter XL of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1872. Under Section 3 of the Code of 1898 all references to the old Code and its sections and chapters must be read as referring to the new Code and its corresponding sections and chapters. Chapter XL of the Code of 1872 corresponds to Chapter XII of the Code of 1898 partly and to Section 522 partly. There is no reason to confine the operation of Art. 47 to order under Chapter XII only. It is also contended that an order restoring possession under Section 522 is an order respecting the possession of property within the meaning of Art. 47. We do not see any force in this contention. The case in Bolaichand Ghosal V/s. Samiruddin Mandal (1891) ILR 19 C 646 cannot help the appellant. In that case the right which was the basis of the suit did not exist at the time of the criminal proceedings and was not affected by the order in then proceedings. The appeal, therefore, fails as to item 1 and is dismissed with costs of respondents 1 and 5, the costs being proportionate to its value.