(BANJOISI) NARASAMMA Vs. BANJOISI SARASAMMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.A. No. 1067 of 1922 The plaintiff and Defendants 1 and 2 are sisters, and plaintiff brings this suit to recover her one-third share in the suit house which has been found to belong originally to plaintiff's father. In 1918 the first defendant, who appears to have been in possession of the suit house, brought a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Belief Act against her sister, the 2nd defendant. In executing the decree she obtained obstruction was caused and she came into Court with an application under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code, in which the plaintiff and her alleged tenant were counter-petitioners. An enquiry was held and finally an order was passed in E.A. No. 599 of 1918 which runs as follows: The obstructor did not intervene in that suit. Now she has been evidently set up by her defeated sister. Remove obstruction and deliver.

(2.) The obstructor can only refer to the plaintiff, the second counter-petitioner and by the use of the word " obstructor " the District Munsif must be deemed to have found that she was the person who caused obstruction ; otherwise the word would be meaningless. It would appear, therefore, from his order that he held that the plaintiff caused obstruction and he passed an order which would appear to be under Order 21, Rule 98. As the plaintiff has failed to bring her suit within one year from the date of that order the lower appellate Court has dismissed it as barred by limitation.

(3.) In appeal it is urged that the order directing removal of obstruction was not passed under Order 21, Rule 98, because the plaintiff did not actually obstruct but obstructed through her tenant who was the first counter-petitioner in the application. There is no evidence to support the contention. I think, in the face of the order defining the plaintiff as the obstructor, it is unnecessary to consider that question here.