ASUTOSH BHUIYAN Vs. RADHIKA LAL GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants brought a suit for declaration of their nishkar right to the lands in suit on a declaration that the entry in the Record-of-Rights to the contrary was wrong. Both the Courts below have held that the suit was barred under Art. 120, Lim. Act. The Record-of-Rights was finally published on 31 January 1918, and the certificate was signed on 6 June 1918. The present suit was brought on 8 May 1924. It is not disputed that the present suit is one contemplated by Section 111-B, Ben. Ten. Act. The Courts below have held that the cause of action arose on 1 February 1918, and even making allowance for three months as provided in Section 111-B, the suit is barred under Art. 120, Lim. Act. The appellants contend that the date of the signing of the certificate should be reckoned as the date on which their right to sue accrued and, therefore, their suit is within time. The various sections bearing on this point are not happily worded so as to put the matter beyond all reasonable doubt; but there are decisions of this Court as well as of the Patna High Court which seem to have finally settled this matter.

(2.) According to the law thus interpreted the cause of action arises on the final publication of the Record-of-Rights. The reason is this. An entry in a finally published record does not create any title in favour of any person. It only raises a presumption that it is correct unless the contrary is proved. As it is only a piece of evidence, it is not necessary for the party against whom it is made to institute a suit to correct it. He may bring a suit for the purpose and if he does so, he is bound by the ordinary law. Ramgulam Singh V/s. Bishnu Pargash Narain Singh [1926] 11 C.W.N. 48. Under Section 103-A(2), after disposing of the objections referred to in that and previous sections, the Revenue Officer shall finally frame the record and shall cause it to be finally published in the prescribed manner. Under Section 103-B(3), every entry in a Record-of-Rights so published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct unless it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. The certificate signed by the Revenue Officer stating that the Record-of-Rights has been finally published shall be conclusive evidence of such publication under Section 103-B. A cause of action for a declaratory suit arises when a cloud is cast upon the title of the plaintiff. As under Section 103-B(3), the presumption of correctness at once attaches to an entry on the publication of the record, the right to sue to get rid of the presumption or to remove the cloud from the plaintiffs title accrues on the date of publication

(3.) Now. Section 111-B says that no suit relating to certain matters mentioned therein shall be instituted within three months from the date of the certificate of final publication. If the final publication and the making of the certificate are not simultaneous the result must be that the cause of action arises immediately on the publication of the Record-of-Rights and the period of limitation is subsequently suspended for three months after the certificate is made. The position does not appear to be happy, but this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the various sections of the Act and the interpretation put upon them by judicial decisions. A suit for alteration of rent or the determination of the status of any tenant cannot be brought under Section 111 until three months after the publication of the Record-of-Rights. This provision indicates that every other suit can be brought as soon as the Record-of-Rights is published. This seems to be the plain intendment of the law as contained in the several sections as understood by Courts. In Rajani Nath Pramanik V/s. Monaram Mandal [1919] 23 C.W.N. 833 it is observed that a certificate signed by the Revenue Officer is conclusive evidence of its publication; but the presumption as to the correctness of the entry arises from the publication which is provided by Section 103 A.