DHARMU Vs. DALSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . J. Sen has been heard for the appellants. Their contention is that Section 28, Limitation Act, does not apply to the right in a tenancy, although Section 104 (4), Tenancy Act, 1920, says in so many words that it does. That is at first sight preposterous, but in support of it I have been referred to the reasons stated by one of the Judges of this Court in Banan v. Ranjitsingh A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 99. The basis of the whole of the reasoning which is given at considerable length appears to be in the statement that the legislature have deliberately abstained from extending the provisions of Section 28, Limitation Act, to the tenancy lands in the Central Provinces.

(2.) THE statement seems to have been made without reference to Section 104 (4), Tenancy Act, 1920, of which there appears to be no mention in the judgment. The appeal is dismissed without notice to the respondent.