DAULAT SINGH Vs. SHEO NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short history which gives rise to this appeal is this. In the year 1871, two brothers Laiq Singh and Thakur Singh sold their share in a zamindari property to Durga Singh, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff-respondent before me. Having regard to the fact that this sale left the vendors completely destitute, Durga Singh executed an agreement by which he allowed to each of the vendors certain lands, to be held by them rent free, till they made any attempt to transfer the same by mortgage or sale. Thakur Singh died and was succeeded by his wife, Mula Kuer. Mula Kuer is now dead and the present appellant Daulat Singh is in occupation of the land as a reversioner to Thakur Singh. The present suit was instituted on the allegation that the muaff held by Thakur Singh and after him by Mula Kuer, had been resumed by proceedings taken in Court in the year 1894 (judgment dated 18 December 1894). But since then, the defendant and his predecessor have been in possession "without consent and without any contract and without payment of rent." The plaintiff sued to eject the defendant as a mere non- occupancy tenant.

(2.) The suit was resisted, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by 12 years rule of limitation. It is said, that the possession of Mt. Mula Kuer, since the order for resumption was passed, on 18 December 1894, became adverse to the landlord and since the lapse of 12 years from the date, she and after her the defendant became the proprietor of the land. The suit failed in the Court of first instance but has been decreed by the learned District Judge on appeal. In this Court it is contended that the plea of limitation was a valid plea and ought to have been given effect to by the learned District Judge.

(3.) Act 12 of 1881 by Section 30 provided for a resumption of rent free land. The procedure was by an application. Section 30 gave two reliefs to the applicant. One was, "to resume such grants" and the second was, to assess rent on the land." The copy of the decree, which is on the record as 55-A, shows that the former relief, namely resumption of the land was asked for and was granted. Now the question is; what is the effect of this decree?