Judgement

HEGDE, J.: - There is little substance in this appeal by certificate under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

2. The facts of this case are as follows:

Respondents 1 and 2, who are husband and wife, filed a suit under Section 180 of the U. P. Tenancy Act on October 17, 1951 seeking possession of the suit properties alleging that they had taken on lease the suit properties from Raja Harish Chandra but the appellants had taken wrongful possession of the same in October 1950. The appellants resisted the suit on various grounds. In particular they contended that the suit properties had been leased to their predecessors by the agent of Raja Harish Chandra in 1946 and ever since then their predecessor and thereafter they have been in possession of the same. They further contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court upheld the lease in favour of the appellants and consequently it concluded that the lease in favour of respondents 1 and 2 was not valid. It also came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. It accordingly dismissed the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 took up the matter in appeal to the Additional Commissoner. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal ex parte and decreed the suit as prayed for. Thereafter the matter was taken up in second appeal to the Board of Revenue by the present appellants. The Board of Revenue allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Additional Commissioner for disposal on merits. After remand, the appeal was reheard by the Additional Commissioner. By his judgment, dated June 16, 1964, he again allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. He came to the conclusion that the lease in favour of the appellants is invalid as the agent of Raja Harish Chandra had no authority to give the properties on lease without the consent of Raja Harish Chandra or his manager. It further came to the conclusion that the appellants took possession of the properties only in 1950. As such the suit was within time. Aggrieved by that order the appellants took up the matter in second appeal to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue concurred with the conclusion reached by the Additional Commissioner. It came to the conclusion that the finding of the Additional Commissioner that the appellants came into possession of the properties only in 1950 being a finding of fact, was binding on it. The appellants challenged the decision of the Board of Revenue before the High Court of Allahabad by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The matter was, at the first instance heard by a single Judge of that Court. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and remanded the case back to the Board of Revenue for fresh disposal. Against that order of the learned single Judge, respondents 1 and 2 filed an appeal before the Letters Patent Bench. The Letters Patent Bench reversed the decision of the learned single Judge and affirmed that of the Board of Revenue. Thereafter this appeal has been brought after obtaining a certificate under Article 133 (1) (a).

3. The two questions that have been primarily canvassed before us are: (1) that the lease in favour of the appellants is a valid lease and therefore the lease in favour of respondents 1 and 2 is invalid and (2) that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. So far as the lease in favour of the appellants is concerned, admittedly that lease had not been granted by Raja Harish Chandra. According to the appellants the properties of the Raja were under the management of Court of Wards in 1946. One Aziz Ullah on behalf of Punjab Farmers entered into an agreement with the Court of Wards for taking on lease the suit properties on a rental of Rs. 1550/- per annum. But before a lease could be executed by the Court of Wards, the properties were released to Raja Harish Chandra. Thereafter in 1947 Kashinath, agent of Raja Harish Chandra executed a registered Patta in favour of the original lessees, Punjab