Judgement

MUDHOLKAR, J. : The short point which falls to be considered in this appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab dismissing the appellant s appeal in limine is whether the suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is within time. There are ten respondents to the appeal out of whom only two, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Amardas and respondent No. 11 Union of India are represented. While the appeal is contested by the first respondent it is supported by the Union of India. The facts which are not disputed before us are briefly these :

2. The appellant has a share of 122 1/2 / 143 1/2 in the land in suit. The occupancy tenant of this land is Akhara Nirbansar of Sultanwind Gate, Amritsar. The second respondent Ram Saran Das was Mahant of this Akhara till the year 1950 when he was removed by virtue of an order made by a civil Court in a suit under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure confirmed in appeal on September 11, 1950. On December 29, 1953 respondent No. 1 was appointed as Mahant in place of respondent No. 2.

3. On September 15, 1939 the appellant instituted a suit in a revenue court under Ss. 38 and 39 of the Punjab Tenancy