JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J.—Special leave is granted. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants, and dismissing their suit, on the ground of being barred by limitation.

2. The subject-matter of the present case is agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh belonging to one Sham Sunder, the original plaintiff since dead, who was the father of the appellant No. 1 and the grandfather of the appellants Nos. 2 and 3. The defendant respondent, Moti, alleging to be a sub-tenant cultivating the land, claimed the benefits u/ S. 27(4) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Notice was issued to Sham Sunder which according to his case was not served on him. The claim of Moti was accepted, amount of compensation payable u/ S. 27(4) of the Act was determined by the Compensation Officer and consequential orders were passed in his favour. The present slit was filed by Sham Sunder challenging the aforesaid orders on the allegation that Moti was merely a labourer employed by him and he never cult