KAMESHWAR SINGH BAHADUR Vs. RAMPAT THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a claim for payment reserved under a Settlement for the year 1339 of the right to cut grass.

(2.) Two substantial questions were argued in the Courts below: the first was a plea of payment and the second, the question of limitation. The trial Court accepted the plea of payment so far as part of the claim was concerned and decided against the defendant on the point of limitation. The Appellate Court whilst deciding against the defendant on the plea of payment accepted his defence on the point of limitation. I have already stated that the Settlement was with the defendant for the year 1339 and one of the questions which arose with regard to the matter of limitation was, when was payment to be made? The defendant contended that the payment was to be made in Jeth of the year 1339 which would put the matter beyond the period of limitation. The learned Judges in the Courts below have come to the conclusion that there was no agreement between the parties as to this but have found that the payment was to be made on 30 Jeth.

(3.) The contention of Sir Sultan Ahmad on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant is that Section 193, Bihar Tenancy Act, applies and therefore Schedule 3, Sub-clause (2) (b), where the rent is paid in money, the period of limitation is three years and the time from which the period begins to run is the "last day of the agricultural year in which the arrear fell due". There is no dispute that if the Schedule applies to this action it is not barred by limitation. Section 193 of the Act provides: The provisions of this Act applicable to suits lot the recovery of arrears of rent shall, as far as may be, apply to suits for the recovery of anything payable or deliverable in respect of any rights of pasturage, forest rights, rights over fisheries and the like.