The main legal point established is that the correct Article of the Limitation Act, jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the date from which the limitation period should commence are crucial in determining the applicability of limitation and the outcome of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Sen, J. - This appeal is by the Plaintiff. The facts which need be stated for the purposes of this appeal briefly are as follows:-The Plaintiff instituted a suit against the Defendant for the recovery of a sum of money due on a security bond and obtained a decree. In execution of that decree the Plaintiff on 18th April, 1925, purchased a certain piece of land belonging to the Defendant. On the 7th October, 1926, delivery of possession was given to the Plaintiff. The peon adopted the mode of delivery of possession prescribed in Or. 21, r. 96 although the proper mode to have been adopted was that prescribed in Or. 21, r. 95. The Plaintiff himself describes this possession as being " symbolical " possession and says that after taking this " symbolical" possession he went to take actual possession sometime in July, 1927, by ploughing the land. The Defendant and his party prevented the Plain tiff from ploughing the land. Thereupon the Plaintiff instituted the present suit for declaration of title to this land and for recovery of possession thereof. He valued the suit at Rs. 300 and presented the plaint in the Munsif's Court at Cox's Bazar on the 26th October, 1938, which was the day on which the Courts re-opened after the Puja vacation. The Defendant objected to the valuation of the suit and that objection was allowed and the plaint was returned to be filed to the proper Court. An appeal against this order was taken but it was dismissed on the 28th June, 1939. On that date the Plaintiff presented his plaint in the Court of the Sadar Munsif of Chittagong valuing the suit at Rs. 1,260. The defence taken was that the land did not belong to the Defendant and that he had transferred it to his wife in lieu of dower before the purchase by the Plaintiff. It was contended that the Plaintiff acquired nothing by his purchase. The next objection taken was that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court held that the alleged transfer by the Defendant to his wife was a colourable transaction and was of no effect. The Court also held that the suit was not barred by limitation and gave the Plaintiff a decree. On appeal the learned District Judge has agreed with the learned Munsif regarding the invalidity of the transfer made by the Defendant to the Defendant's wife but he has held that the suit is barred by limitation and has dismissed the suit.

2. The only point argued on appeal by the Plaintiff in this Court is that the suit is not barred by limitation. It will now be necessary to consider this point. I must first decide which Article of the Limitation Act applies to this suit. On behalf of the Appellant it is contended that Article 144 applies whereas the Respondent contends that Article 142 is the proper one. In my opinion there can be no doubt that Article 142 is the proper Article which applies in this case. The Plaintiff has brought the suit for possession of immovable property on the ground of being dispossessed. Article 142 of the Limitation Act in terms applies to such a suit and I am unable to appreciate how any other Article can be made applicable. Now in order to succeed in such a suit the Plaintiff must show that he was in possession of the property in suit within 12 years of the suit. In deciding the question of limitation one point must first be decided and it is this:-Is the Plaintiff entitled to have the benefit of the period covered by the Puja vacation in calculating the period of limitation for the suit? The suit was instituted on the re-opening day of the Courts but it was instituted not in the proper Court but in the Court of Munsif at Cox's Bazar. In these circumstances it has to be decided whether the Plaintiff can avail himself of the provisions of sec. 4 of the Indian Limitation Act which says " Where the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, preferred or made on the day that the Cour