KAMAKSHYA NARAIN SINGH Vs. FATEH KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, affirming the decision of the Munsif of Hazaribagh is a suit in which the appellant claimed the recovery of possession of certain lands by the ejectment of the respondents.

(2.) In 1897, the appellant's grandfather resumed possession of the land in question and remained in possession thereof, according to the appellant, until his death in 1913 or, according to the respondents father in 1911. When the appellant's grandfather died, his father was a minor and the estate came under the management of the Court of Wards. The appellant's father attained his majority on 6-4-1919, and on that date the estate was notified to be released. Pour days later, however, appellant father died and as the appellant was then a minor the Court of Wards remained in possession until he attained his. majority on 10-8-1937. During the appellant's minority, the Court of Wards brought Title suit No. 162 of 1926 to recover possession of the land in question from the respondents, but the claim was dismissed. Mr. N.C. Mitter, the advocate in the suit advised an appeal, but no appeal was filed. In evidence Mr. N.C. Mitter stated that his opinion was sent to the Legal Remembrance but he did not know why no appeal was filed.

(3.) The two relevant issues in the suit were, firstly, whether having regard to the alleged grossly negligent conduct thereof by the Court of Wards, the decision in Title Suit No. 162 of 1926 is res judicata between the parties, as to which the learned Munsif found in the negative and the learned Subordinate Judge in the affirmative, and secondly, whether the suit is barred by limitation and adverse possession, as to which there are concurrent findings in the affirmative.