AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The main relief asked for in the plaint was a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to hold the land free of assessment. The other relief which was to recover the assessment collected by the Government for one year, was merely consequential upon the establishment of the right asserted by the plaintiff. It is argued that the suit was in effect one to establish a periodically recurring right for which the limitation period is 12 years under Article 131, Limitation Act.
But it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain such a declaration without getting the Collector''s order resuming the dasabandam inim set aside, see Parbati Nath Dutt v. Rajmohun Dutt 6 C.W.N. 92 and Raghunath Prasad v. Kaniz Rasul 24 A.a 467 : (1902) A.W.N. 116 and for this purpose he was under Article 14 of the Limitation Act bound to bring his suit within one year of the passing of that order. The present suit having been filed in (sic) twelve years after the order is clearly time-barred. We are asked to treat the Collector''s order as a nullity, but it is clearly not so.
The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.