Pandah Gazi vs Jennuddi and Others

Mitter, J.—We are of opinion that the definition given in the Registration Acts is expressly given for the purposes of those Acts, and ought not to govern the decision of the questions raised in this case. Following the principle of distinction between moveable and p. immoveable properties as laid down in Raj Chandra Bose v. Dharmo Chandra Bose 8 B.L.R. 510, Nuttu Miah v. Nand Rani Ibid, 509 and the ruling directly upon the point in Tofail Ahmud v. Banee Madhub Mookerjee 24 W.R., 394, we think that standing crops are not moveable property. Consequently, supposing the Limitation Act of 1871 was applicable to this case, the Munsif was wrong in applying Article 26 of the second schedule of that Act. We think that Article No. 40 was applicable. Therefore, the remedy of the Plaintiff was not barred until the new Limitation Act came into operation.

This being so, the second question referred does not arise. The Munsif ought there to have decided the question of limitation in this case with reference to Act XV of 1877; and under Article 36 of that Act the suit is not barred. We may, however, draw the attention of the Munsif to the case of Krishna Mohun Bose v. Okhil Moni Dosse ILR 3 Calc. 331 which decides the point raised in the second question.