MT JAIDEVI KUARI Vs. DAKSHINI DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been ably argued by Mr. Babu Ram Avasthi, but in spite of his able arguments, I remain unconvinced. The dispute in the case was with respect to grove No. 1553. This grove belonged in equal shares to two persons named Chedi Lal and Sheo Prasad. The plaintiff-appellant is the daughter and successor-in- interest of Chedi Lal. By means of a sale deed dated 14 September 1889, Sheo Prasad sold his half share in the entire grove to one Bansidhar who was a benamidar of the father of the defendant-respondents. The defendant-respondents are, therefore, the successors-in-interest of Sheo Prasad.

(2.) In the year 1916 dispute arose between Chedi Lal and the defendants father as regards the possession of the southern half of the grove. The dispute culminated in proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C. The criminal Court held that the defendants father was in exclusive possession of and had prima facie title to the southern half of the grove and accordingly was entitled to retain possession of the same until evicted therefrom in due course of law. Neither Chedi Lal nor the plaintiff thereafter took steps to recover possession or joint possession of the southern half of the grove with the result that the defendants father and after him the defendants remained in sole possession of the same till the date of the suit giving rise to the present appeal. The defendants cut some trees from the portion of the grove in their possession and this occasioned the suit under appeal. The plaintiff alleged that she was the sole owner of the entire grove and, accordingly, claimed a decree for recovery of the price of the trees cut by the defendants and further prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from doing any act that may be prejudicial to the plaintiff's rights and from cutting the trees of the grove.

(3.) The defendants contended that they were the owners of a half share in the grove and that, by virtue of a private partition the southern half of the grove had been allotted to their share or, to be more precise, to the share of Sheo Prasad. They alleged that from the time of the sale of 1889 they and their predecessors- in-title were in exclusive and adverse possession of the southern half of the grove and the. plaintiff's suit was time-barred. In particular they contended that, in view of Art. 47, Schedule 1, Limitation Act, the omission of the plaintiff's father and of the plaintiff to file a suit for possession or joint possession of the southern half of the grove within three years of the date of the order passed by the criminal Court had the result of extinguishing such rights as the plaintiff had in the southern half of the grove.