The provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to orders decreeing ejectment under Section 4(2) of the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act, 1917.

( 1 ) AN interesting question as to the procedure to be followed in regard to actions under Madras Act I of 1917 and the nature of limitations concerning those rights arise for consideration in this Revision Petition. The few material facts for appreciating the question are the following : The respondents herein filed S. R. No. 4/49 on 8th July, 1950 before the Special Assistant agent, Rajahmundry, purporting to be under section 4 of the Agency Tracts interest and Land Transfer Act (Madras Act I of 1917 ). They got an order from the Special assistant Agent, Rajahmundry, the operative portion of which is the following terms : "i therefore order that the respondents be evicted from the land given in the schedule below and the petitioners put in possession of the lands. "

( 2 ) IT may be pointed out that, the respondents mentioned in the above order are the petitioners herein and that there is no dispute that this order was passed under sub-section (2) of section 4 of Act I of 1917. Thereafter the respondents herein filed C. E. P. No. 3 of 1957 for restoration of those properties to them. The petitioners herein, though obliged to carry out the orders of the Assistant Agent, raised two objections : firstly, that C. E. P. No. 3 of 1957 was barred by time as it was not filed within three years from the date of the order in S. R. No. 4/49 ; secondly, that orders in S. R. 4/49 which decreed ejectment were passed without jurisdiction. The Assistant Agent overruled the second objection and held that the order decreeing the ejectment has become final as no appeal is preferred therefrom. However, he took the view that on the question of limitation the objection could stand and therefore dismissed C. E. P. No. 3 of 1957. Aggrieved by this order, the respondents herein prefered C. M. A. No. I of 1958 to the Agent to Government, East Godavari at kakinada. This appeal was allowed as the Agent held that the order decreeing ejectment under section 4 (2) of Act I of 1917 is not a decree of a civil Court and there can be no enforcement of that order by execution proceedings treating it as a decree . He also held that, the provisions of the Limitation Act did not apply and therefore set aside the order of the Assistant Agent which proceeded on the basis that the execution petition was barred by limitation. This order of the Agent in c. M. A. No. i nf 1958 is challenged by filing this revision petition under Article 357 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) MR. AYYAPPA Sastry for the petitioner contended that, the view of the Agent is wrong inasmuch as any order passed under sub-section (2) of section 4 of Act I of 1917 should be considered as only a decree which is executable and to which the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily drawn. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions in rani of Tuni v. Maharajah of Jeypore, (1922) 42 M. L. J. 487, and Venkata Nagabhushanam v. Ramaswami, (1923) 45 M. L. J. 78. The first of these deals with rule 20 framed under Act XXIV of 1839 (Ganjam and Vizagapatam Act ). These rules were in force, it may be mentioned, till 1924 and they were thereafter replaced by what are known as Revised Rules by G. O. No. 1116, Revenue, dated 23rd July, 1924.

( 4 ) IT appears it is not possible to secure a text of those rules and therefore they are not placed before this Court either. But judging from the tenor of the Agency Revised rules framed under the same Act, it is possible to gather that the rules so framed are made applicable to Courts of Agency Divisional Officers and Agency Munsifs which are subordinate to the Agent to Governor or the Government Agent and in respect of all suits of a civil nature, excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred (vide rule 3 ). Thus, it is not in respect of every order decreeing anything that the Agent or any other prescribed officer of the Agency that is brought within the purview of these rules but only the unexcepted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document