HEMENDRA NATH ROY CHOUDHURY Vs. JNANENDRA PRASANNA BHADURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who is the appellant before us sued for possession of some plots of land, his case being that they form parts of his estates bearing touzi Nos. 1624, 1644 and 1647 of the Mymensingh Collectorate. The defendants claim the said lands to be parts and parcels of their estate bearing touzi No. 1646 of the aforesaid Collectorate. Both the Courts below have found that portions of the lands in suit surrounded by red lines in Commissioner's map fall within the plaintiff's estates, but on the question of limitation the Courts below have differed.

(2.) For the purpose of deciding the question of limitation it is necessary to consider the following facts: Golak Nath Roy was the proprietor in the past of the estates claimed by the plaintiff. He died on 10 May 1846, without any issue but survived by a widow, Jahnvi Choudhurani. He had given his wife power to adopt a son to him. Shortly after his death his widow, Jahnvi Choudhurani adopted Baikuntha Nath Roy Choudhury who on his adoption become the full owner of the properties left by Golak Nath. On 6th. September 1865, Baikuntha Nath however executed an ekrarnama (Ex. 3) in favour of his adoptive mother, Jahnvi Choudhurani. It is not disputed that by the said document a life estate was created in favour of Jahnvi Choudhurani, in respect of the properties left by Golak Nath, and Baikuntha Nath was to get possession on her death. Jahnvi Choudhurani died on 24 February 1900. Baikuntha died on 27 April 1887 leaving him surviving a widow, Rani Dinomani. He left no son, but gave Rani Dinomani power to adopt a son to him. On the death of Jahnvi Choudhurani Dinomani went into possession of the estate, in which, according to Hindu law, she had a widow's estate till 3 August 1914, when she adopted the plaintiff. Ordinarily the estate would have vested in the plaintiff in absolute right from the date of the adoption and he would have been entitled to take possession, but a few days before the adoption his natural father, he being a minor then, entered into an agreement with the adoptive mother, Rani Dinomani, by which Rani Dinomani was to remain in possession of the estate as a life tenant and on her death the plaintiff was to get possession. This agreement was executed on 17th July 1914 and has been marked Ex. 3(a). Rani Dinomani died on 9 September 1918 and the suit was filed on 8 September 1930 and registered on 10 September 1930. The plaintiff contends that his suit is in time, Arts. 140 and 141, Lim. Act, being the articles applicable to the case.

(3.) It is well settled that if a life tenant be dispossessed the reversioner or remainderman is in time if he institutes the suit for possession of immovable property within 12 years of the death of the life tenant, and if successive life estates had been created the remainderman or the reversioner will be in time if he institutes the suit for possession within 12 years of the death of the last life tenant.