AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 226 wordsWilson, J.—In this case the District Judge has reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge, and dismissed the suit, on the ground that it is barred by Section 27 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869, as not having been brought within a year after the plaintiff was dispossessed.
We are unable to agree with the view taken by the District Judge. It has been repeatedly decided both u/s 23 of Act X of 1859, and under the corresponding Section 27 of Act VIII of 1869, that the one section or the other has no application to a case in which the plaintiff relies upon his title and seeks to recover possession upon the strength of that title, and in which the defendant denies that title.
Such a suit might have been tried in a Civil Court while Act X of 1859 was in force; and such suit is not subject to the limitation laid down by Section 27 of Act VIII of 1869. Gooroo Doss Roy v. Ram Narain Mitter, J. B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 628: 7 W.R. 186: Nistarinee v. Kally Pershad Dass Chowdhry 21 W.R. 53 Nilmadhub Shaha v. Srinibash Kurmokar I.L.R 7 Cal. 442.
The decree of the District Judge will be set aside, and the case will go back to be heard in the lower Appellate Court on the merits.