JUDGMENT

1. The short point, which arises in this case, is one of limitation. The question is whether the suit is barred by the special law of limitation under the Sylhet Tenancy Act (Assam Act 11 of 1936). The facts which it is necessary to state are shortly these: One Inatulla held an occupancy holding which, upon his death, devolved upon his heirs, namely, his widow, three sons and a daughter. Defendant 4, the appellant before us, was admittedly the sole landlord of the holding. In November 1931 he claims to have purchased the interest of all the heirs of Inatulla. The Courts below that Inatulla's daughter did not join in the conveyance and that her interest consequently did not pass have found it, however. It is further found that another heir Marfat, the son of Inatulla's third son, was a minor at the time and his interest also could not, therefore, be conveyed to the defendant. The position consequently was that although defendant 4 purported to purchase the entire holding, he acquired title in respect only of the interest of the heirs of Inatulla other than Marfat and the daughter. All the same, it is found that he took possession of the entire holding. On 8th December 1937,