MOHANLAL Vs. SATYABHAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for pre-emption in which the plaintiffs have succeeded in the lower Court. The only question for decision here is one of limitation. The sale-deed in respect of the land sought to be preempted was registered on the 15th June 1922 and the suit was instituted on the 29th March 1924. The purchaser defendant pleaded that at the date of the registration the land did not admit of physical possession as it was in the possession of a trespasser, that the second part of Col. 3, Article 10, Schedule 1, Lim. Act, therefore applied and that the suit was time barred. The plaintiffs pleaded and the lower Courts have found that the purchaser took possession at the end of the year 1923.

(2.) THE question for decision is whether land in possession of a trespasser at the date of the registration of the sale-deed is land which does not admit of physical possession. The following authorities support an answer to this question in the negative. Chandan Singh v. Chafidi Prasad [1888] A.W.N. 227, Velayudham Pillai v. Velayuddam Pillai A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 554 Jayamaya Dasi, v. Tulsa A.I.R. 1926 All. 70 and the observations at p. 58 in Jairam v. Sitaram [1920] 16 N.L.R. 37.

(3.) THE appeal fails and is dismissed with, costs.