Judgement

This suit was brought for the recovery of Wasilat, or mesne profits of real estate, and the sole question raised by the appeal was, whether the Respondent was entitled to wasilat from the period of twelve years next before the institution of the suit, according to sec. 14 of Ben. Reg. III. of 1793, or, whether he was entitled to go back to the year 1829, the date at which by certain deeds of Razenamah and Safeenamah, and an order of Court made thereon, his title to the moiety of the property became perfected.

The facts are fully stated in the judgment. The appeal was argued by

Mr. R. Painter, Q. C, Mr. Leith, and Mr. Maude, for the Appellant, and

Mr. W. Field, for the Respondent.

The authorities cited upon the question of the limitations of the suit, under Ben. Reg. III., of 1793, sec. 14, and Ben. II., of 1805, secs. 1 and 3, cl. 3, to the wasilat, were Troup and Dyce sorurbre v. The East India Company (7 Moores Ind. App. Cases, 104) , Rajah Eva yet Hossein v. Haynd Ahmed Reza (Ib 238.), Prannath Roy Chowdry v. Rookea [@ page

M.I.A. 310] Begum(7 Moores Ind. App. Cases, 323.), Sheoraj Singh v. Munsookh Rai (7 Sua. Dew. Rep. N. W. P. 337), Pudarut Dap v. Futteh Ali (7 Sud. Dew. Rep. N. W. P. 158.) .

Their Lordships judgment was delivered by

The Right Hon. Lord Kingsdown [20th Dec, 1860]—

A suit was instituted by the present Respondent in 1853, and the only question in the case is, whether the Respondent is barred from the prosecution of his claims in this suit by the Indian law of limitation.

It is necessary to the correct understanding of this case to state some of the circumstances under which the suit was commenced and the decree pronounced.

It appears that both the Appellant and Respondent are brothers; their uncle died without issue in 1810 ; their father died in 1821, having succeeded to the property of their uncle, and he left the Appellant and Respondent, his two sons, joint heirs-at-law. The property which so devolved upon them was very considerable, and much litigation ensued as to the division and possession of that property, which was situated in various Districts; to recover each portion of the property lying in various Districts, it would be necessary to institute proceedings in the various Courts having local jurisdiction.

On the 29th of January, 1827, the present Appellant instituted a suit against the Respondent, in the Provincial Court of Calcutta, to recover a certain share in Zillah Jessore, which was, in fact, a very small part of the estates in question. Whilst this suit was pending, the parties to it came to an agree ment to compromise their claims, and on the 4th of April, 1829, deeds of compromise were executed and filed in the Zillah Court —they agreed to divide the estate in certain proportions; and it was further stipulated that, in the event of either of the parties not agreeing to act according to the terms of the compromise, they had no objection to the Courts insisting upon and enforcing the observance of the said compromise.

The Respondent applied to the Collector for an Ameen to make a partition in terms of the above deeds.

On the 24th of April, 1829, the Appellant, he was the Plaintiff in that suit, presented a petition to the Provincial Court, praying that the suit might be struck off the file of the Court, on the ground of the compromise being effected. The Respondent, on the 25th of April, 182y, objected to this petition, and alleged that the compromise was not binding, undue influence having been exercised by the Collector to bring about the same.

The Provincial Court of Calcutta, however, on the 2nd of September, 1829, made the following order that the case be struck off the file, and that the parties conform to their respective engagements; in the event of their not conforming to the same this Court shall insist on and cause them to conform to the conditions of the compromise. The suit was removed from the file on the 2nd of September, 1829, and the value of the stamp returned