The period spent in prosecuting a suit in a court without jurisdiction can be excluded under Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act, if the plaintiff has been prosecuting the suit with due diligence and in good faith, and the court was unable to entertain the suit due to defect of jurisdiction.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This is a defendants second appeal, against the concurrent decrees, passed by the courts below in a suit in ejectment, brought by the plaintiff-respondents.

2. The plaintiffs father purchased the suit lands at a court sale, and thereafter got delivery of possession over them through court. The plaintiffs " father was recorded in the survey Record of Rights also in respect of the disputed lands. The final publication of the Record of Rights took place on 21-1-35. Thereafter, the plaintiffs father died, and the plaintiffs came in possession of the disputed properties.

It was alleged that they were dispossessed In April, 1937, by the defendant, from Khata 192. Subsequently in 1946, they were dispossessed from Khata 194 also by the defendant when he constructed a house on this plot. On these allegations, the plaintiffs brought the suit for a declaration of titled and recovery of possession, in respect of the disputed lands.

3. The defendant contested the suit. His defence was that the suit was barred by limitation, and that the sale of the disputed lands was illegal, as it was held by the defendants father, in lieu of service, under the Maharaja of Chotanagpore, & that there was never any delivery of possession through court in favour of the plaintiffs father, nor, was he ever in possession of the lands. The defendant asserted that he had always been in possession of the disputed lands.

4. The first court found that the suit lands were purchased by the plaintiffs father, who obtained delivery of possession through court, and that the entry in the record of rights of the revisional survey was correct. It also found that the suit was not barred by limitation. On these findings, it decreed the suit.

5. On appeal by the defendant, the learned Subordinate Judge affirmed" the findings of the first court, and held that the suit was not barred by limitation, and, therefore, the decree passed by the first court was correct. On these findings ha dismissed the appeal.

6. The defendant, against the aforesaid decree, has preferred the present appeal.

7. Mr. Krishna Ballabh Narain Singh, appearing for the appellant, has substantially taken three points before me; (1) that the plaintiffs siut was barred by limitation under Art. 142 of the Limitation Act, inasmuch as the court of appeal below had given no specific finding that the plaintiffs had subsisting title in the lands in suit; (2) that the courts below have taken a wrong view of the law in treating the suit originally instituted on 20-1-47, as having been validly instituted, in spite of the fact that the .plaint was reregistered as a new suit on 14-4-49; and (3) that the court of appeal below had misplaced the onus by wrongly placing it on the defendant to establish the continuous possession of the plaintitfs from the survey record of rights, even when the plaintiffs themselves pleaded that they were dispossessed in April 1937 from Khata 192.

8. In order to appreciate the second objection, mentioned above, it is necessary to state a few more facts. The plaint was originally filed on 20-1-47 before the Munsif of Ranchi, because the valuation of the suit mentioned in the plaint was Rs. 192/8/r, the amount, at which the entire property, only a portion of which was in dispute; had been purchased by the plaintiffs father. An objection was taken by the defendant about the undervaluation of the suit, and the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit.

This was, considered by the learned Munsif, and he by his order dated 28-2-48 found that the price mentioned in the sale certificate was no guide; as the market value of the land had to be taken into consideration. He accordingly, after consideration of the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the proper valuation of the suit land should be Rs. 2,100, which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. He, there fore, directed that the plaint should be presented to the proper court on or before