RAM NANDAN RAI Vs. TILESHAR RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal against concurrent decrees of the Courts below dismissing their claim for a declaration. The plaintiffs brought these proceedings claiming a declaration that they were the owners of certain property. A number of defences were raised by the-defendants, but it is only necessary to consider one of them and that is a plea that the suit was barred by time. It appears that the parties were concerned in certain partition proceedings and in those proceedings the present plaintiffs raised questions of proprietary title and on 1 September 1931 the Assistant Collector in whose Court the partition proceedings were taking place, passed an order directing the present plaintiffs to file a suit to establish their title to the property in question within three months. This he did under the provisions of Section 111, Land Revenue Act.

(2.) The plaintiffs appealed against this order and on 27 November 1931, that is before the expiry of the period of three months, the Collector set aside the order of the Assistant Collector and directed the latter to enquire himself into the question of proprietary title. After this order, of course, it was unnecessary for the plaintiffs to file any suit, because the Appellate Court had directed that the lower Court was to decide the matter itself. However, the present defendants being dissatisfied with the Collector's order appealed to the Com-missioner who, on 25th July 1932, that is over ten months after the original order was passed, reversed the order of the Collector and restored the order of the Assistant Collector. No application was made to the Commissioner to extend the time and it is obvious that if time ran from the date of the original order the plaintiffs could not possibly have brought this suit after the reversal of the Collector's order by the Commissioner. The plaintiffs appealed against the decision of the Commissioner to the Board of Revenue, and on 3 December 1932 the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal and again it has to be noted that no further time was given to the plaintiffs to file the suit.

(3.) The present suit was filed by the plain, tiffs in the Civil Court on 14 February 1933. As I have stated, both the lower Courts have held that the suit is barred by time and have consequently dismissed it. In second appeal, it has been argued before me that the period of three months to bring this suit should be computed not from the date of the original order of the Assistant Collector but from the date of the final order in these proceedings, viz. the date of the order of the Board of Revenue dismissing the appeal from the Commissioner and upholding the original order of the Assistant Collector. This date is 3 December 1932, and if that be the proper date, then this suit is within time. I may observe at this stage that on 27th October 1932 an application was made to the Assistant Collector for further time and he gave a further three months from 19 January 1932. It has not been seriously contended that the Assistant Collector could extend the time and it is difficult to understand how he had jurisdiction to do so. However, he did extend the time and this suit is brought within that time.