NALINI BHUSAN ROY Vs. HIRALAL ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit but of which this appeal has arisen was one for declaration of title and recovery of possession with mesne profits. The claim for mesne profits was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to institute a separate suit therefor. The prayers for declaration of title and recovery of possession were granted by the decree of the trial Court which has been upheld on appeal by the District Judge. The defendants have preferred this appeal.

(2.) The lands in suit together with other lands constituted the ryoti holding of one Ramratan Sil. Ramratan had a son named Koilas (who died during the lifetime of Ramratan leaving a widow named Nityabasi and a daughter named Brajabasi, who married one Bansi), and a daughter named Tirthabasi (who had two sons, Monmohan and Sanatan). Defendant 1 alleging that she had purchased the suit lands from Koilash's heirs dispossessed Monmohan and Sanatan in 1323 B.S. The plaintiffs purchased the lands from Monmohan and Sanatan and instituted a suit for declaration of title and possession to which defendant I was made a party defendant. It was Suit No. 247 of 1918 and it finally ended in plaintiff's favour on 21 July 1920. There were two execution proceedings. The first one proved abortive, the peon having reported that the lands were not in possession of defendant 1 but of defendants 4 to 6 who are the sons and stepson of defendant 1. The second one terminated on 4 November 1922 when delivery of possession was made in favour of the plain tiffs as against defendant 1. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of the brother of defendant 1's deceased husband. The plaintiffs case was that they obtained actual possession through Court on 4 November 1922, and took the paddy crops that were standing on the land at the time, that they thereafter sowed kalai on the lands which were destroyed by the defendant's cattle on 5 February 1923, that they thereafter sowed the seeds on lands on 7 and 8 February 1923 but on the last mentioned date the defendants ploughed up the lands and destroyed the seeds. The plaintiffs instituted a criminal case which resulted in an acquittal of the accused who were made defendants 7 and 8 in the present suit. The suit was instituted on 3 February 1925.

(3.) Defendants 2 to 6 who have preferred this appeal were the contesting defendants. Apart from the defences on the merits they pleaded that they were in possession as landlords since 1323, and so the plaintiffs claim is barred by the special rule of two years limitation.