MOHIM CHANDRA DEB CHOWDHURY Vs. PYARI LAL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case in which we had the benefit of a very able and learned argument on behalf of the appellants, but I do not think myself that there is very much difficulty in the case: and, further than that, I think it is directly covered by authority. In the Court of first instance the suit was dismissed. The learned Judge of the first Appellate Court decreed the suit, and Mr. Justice Sharfuddin affirmed that judgment.

(2.) The suit was brought for possession of certain land. The plaintiffs bought at a sale held by the Government for arrears of revenue. The material dates were as follows: the sale was on the 7th of September 1895; the sale was confirmed on the 22nd of November 1895; the certificate was granted on the 8th of October 1896, and symbolical possession was given to the plaintiffs on the 22nd of July 1897. The suit was brought on the 22nd of July 1909, just within twelve years after the date when symbolical possession was given to the plaintiffs.

(3.) Two points arise in this case: the first one, upon the meaning of Section 63 of Regulation I of 1886 (the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886), and secondly, whether the plaintiffs claim is barred by the Statute of Limitation. Section 63 says: "Land revenue payable in respect of any estate shall be due jointly and severally from all persons who have been in possession of the estate or any part of it during any portion of the agricultural year in respect of which that revenue is payable. " It has been found as a fact that the land in question was part of the estate which was sold by the Government in respect of the arrears of revenue. But it was alleged by the learned Vakil for the appellants that it was held by the defendants as appertaining to another estate and not to the estate which the Government was selling. I ought to have mentioned that the defendants claim to the title to this land was based upon adverse possession for more than twelve years. Now, as I have said, it has been found that the land in question was part of the estate which had been sold and it cannot be denied that the defendants were also in possession of that part of the estate, and they were in possession of that part of the estate by reason of the adverse possession which they had had for over twelve years.