JAGADISWARI DEBI Vs. TINKARI BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by some of the defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of joint possession to the extent of a seven--annas share in the lands described in the plaint, on declaration of their title. The suit as instituted was necessitated by an order passed against the plaintiffs under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P. C. It appears that there was an application made by the plaintiffs to the Court for permission to sue as paupers, the application was made on 7 June 1926, within the period of limitation prescribed for the institution of a suit of the description contemplated by Art. 11--A, Schedule 1, of the Indian Limitation; it contained all the materials necessary for a plaint, and the application was in accordance with the rules prescribed for presentation of an application for leave to sue as--a pauper:. The application for leave to sue as pauper was refused on 30 January 1928, and on 8 February 1928, time was allowed by the Court for payment of court--fees payable on the plaint which was considered by the Court to have been filed on 7 June 1926. The plaint was subsequently registered by order of the Court, on payment of court--fees as directed on 4 April 1928.

(2.) The suit as registered on payment of court--fees was resisted by the contesting defendants, the appellants in this Court, on the ground of limitation; it was pleaded in defence that the suit wasbarred by one year's limitation from thedate of disposal of the claim made by the plaintiffs under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil P. C. There was another ground on which the suit was contested by the defendants; it was on this ground that the plaintiffshad no title to the lands in suit inasmuch as the same had been completely extinguished by a sale in execution of a decree for rent in respect of a tenancy which was fully represented by the defendants., in the suit for rent. The Courts below negatived both the defences raised by the contesting defendants and agreed in passing a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed by them in the suit.

(3.) The question whether the title of theplaintiffs had passed by the sale in execution of the rent decree, is concluded by the findings concurrently arrived at by the Courts below and cannot be allowed to be agitated in this appeal. The plaintiffs on the findings on evidence come to by the lower Courts were entitled to a decree as claimed by them, in the suit if their claim was not barred by limitation