The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession can extinguish the rights of the true owner, leading to the bar of limitation for bringing actions related to the property.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for assessment of rent in respect of certain lands which have been recorded in the finally published record-of-rights as being in the possession of the Defendants as a niskar tenure appertaining to Touzi No. 11 of the Burdwan Collector-ate held by the Plaintiffs in patni right. The Courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. Hence this second appeal by the Plaintiffs.

The only point for determination in this appeal is whether the Courts below are right in holding that the suit is barred by limitation. The facts which are relevant to the question of limitation are these:-

In the year 1842, Government instituted a suit for resumption of these lands under sec. 6 of Regulation XIX of 1793, in the Court of Special Deputy Collector, District Burdwan. That suit was dismissed on the ground that the area of the land was only 36 bighas, 2 1/2 cottas and the Government had no right to resume lands, the area of which did not exceed 100 bighas. In 1862, a suit was instituted by the then proprietors of Touzi No, 11 for resumption of these lands on the ground that they formed part of the mal lands of their Touzi and that the predecessors-in-interest of the Defendants came into possession of these lands after 1790 and were possessing them without any right. The predecessors of Defendants in that suit contended that they were holding these lands as lakheraj from before 1st December, 1790. This suit was decreed on 31st December, 1867. It was held in that case that there had been no lakheraj grant in respect of these lands either before or after 1790 and that it was a part of the mal lands of Touzi No. 11 and that the Defendants' predecessors who were the former proprietors of this Touzi, were in wrongful possession of the lands as niskar after their title to the Touzi came to an end. Thereafter the proprietors of the Touzi did not take any steps to eject the Defendants' predecessors from the lands or to assess rent on them. In 1905 the predecessors of the Defendants filed a road-cess return, asserting therein their niskar right in the lands to the knowledge of the then putnidar of the village. In the year 1931 in the course of the District Settlement operations the disputed lands were recorded as a niskar tenure of the Defendants within Touzi No. 11 on the basis of the decision in the suit for resumption instituted by Government in the year 1842. The present suit was instituted on February 29th, 1932.

2. It appears from the record-of-rights published in the year 1931 that the revenue authorities recorded these lands as a rent-free tenure on the basis of the decision of the Special Deputy Collector in the year 1842. But the judgment in the suit which was instituted by the proprietors of the Touzi in the year 1862 clearly shows that these lands are mal lands of the Touzi. The presumption arising out of the entries in the record-of-rights in favour of the Defendants is therefore rebutted by this judgment. The contention of Dr. Sen Gupta appeaing on behalf of the Appellants is that Art. 130 of the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to this suit as the disputed lands are not rent-free. His contention is that the present suit comes under Art. 131 of the Indian Limitation Act and as there had been no refusal of Plaintiffs' right to get rent from these lands beyond 12 years from the date of the institution of the suit, the Courts below were wrong in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation. Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the Defendants concedes that the present suit does not come under Art. 130. His contention, however, is that Art. 131 is of no assistance to the Appellants as that Article contemplates suits in cases where the Plaintiffs' right to the property has not been already extinguished by adverse possession of the Defendants and in the present case the adverse possession of the predecessors of the Defendants commenced before 1842, at any rate from 31st D