GANESH PARSAD Vs. BHAWANI PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of the case so far as they are relevant for the decision of this appeal are these. The appellant and respondent 1 are brothers. As stated in the plaint they became joint lessees of certain absolute occupancy lands by inheritance. On 22nd May 1922, respondent 1 transferred his own rights as well as those of the appellant in the lease to respondent 2, who thereupon dispossessed the appellant on the same day from the said lands. The appellant then, filed the suit out o? which this appeal arises on 24th June 1924. He claims joint possession of the property to the extent of his half-share and Rs. 942-8-0. as his share of profits from the land for 1922-23 and 1923-24.

(2.) THE suit was dismissed on the ground that it fell under Article 1, Schedule 2, C.P. Tenancy Act 1920, and was barred by time as it was not filed within two years of the dispossession. The lower Court upheld the view of the trial Judge. It is now urged before me that the article quoted above does not apply to the facts of the present case and also that the running of limitation was checked by the appointment of a receiver on 3rd November 1922 in Civil Suit No. 57 of 1922 by Mt. Rani Dulaya, the mother of the appellant and respondent 1 against all the parties to the present appeal in respect of the same fields. This receiver's possession continued till 23rd January 1924.

(3.) I am unable to accept the contention that Section 1A, Lim. Act, would bring the suit within time. The aid of that section cannot be invoked as the cause of action in Suit No. 57 of 1922 brought by Mt. Dulaya was different and the requirements of that section are not satisfied so as to attract the provisions thereof.