Chintamoni Sahu vs Upendra Nath Sarnokae and Others

This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapur, dated the 23rd July 1898. The suit is one to recover possession of an occupancy-holding. The Plaintiff claims the holding as purchaser from the son of the former holder. The Defendants are in possession, and maintain that they have a right to hold possession, the land having been settled with them by the landlord after the death of the former holder; or, at all events, in his absence.

The Subordinate Judge has held, on the authority of the case of Bheka Singh v. Nakchhed Singh I. L. R. 24 Cal. 40 (1896) that this suit is barred by the limitation of two years. The learned pleader for the Appellants in this case contends that this finding of the Subordinate Judge is wrong; and he cites in support of his contention the case of Sheikh Eradut and others v. Daloo Sheikh and others 1 C. W. N. 573 (1893), and also the cases of Abhoy Churn Mookerjee v. Titu 2 C. W. N. 175 (1897) and Dinobundhu Saha v. Lolit Mohun Moitra 2 C.W.N. 595 (1898). We think, however, that there is no error in the decision of the Subordinate Judge, and that, on the authority of the ruling in the case Bheka Singh v. Nakchhed Singh I. L. R. 24 Cal. 40 (1896), the rule of limitation in this case is two years. The Defendants are under-tenants in occupation of the land, holding it under the landlord and they have been inducted into the land by the agents of the landlord. The case of Sheikh Eradut and others v. Daloo Sheikh and others 1 C. W. N. 573 (1893) does not seem in point, inasmuch as in that case it was held that the landlord had had no hand in the ouster. In this case it is clear that it is under the authority of the landlord that the ouster has taken place. The other two cases those of Abhoy Churn Mookerjee v. Titu 2 C. W. N. 175 (1897) and Dinobundhu Saha v. Lolit Mohun Moitra 2 C.W.N. 595 (1898) cited by the learned pleader for the Appellants, are perfectly different cases and have no application to the present case.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.