JUDGMENT:.- These appeals have been filed by the District Board, Lucknow, against the plaintiffs in various suits giving rise to these appeals. The plaintiffs had instituted different suits for an injunction to restrain the defendant, District Board, from removing the constructions in dispute and from prosecuting the plaintiffs for not removing the constructions in pursuance of the notice issued by the District Board under Section 95 of the U. P. District Boards Act. An injunction was also sought to restrain the defendant from issuing similar notices in future regarding the constructions in dispute.

2. The case of the plaintiffs in each suit was that the constructions standing on the land in suit were about eight years old and were thus not liable to be removed under Section 95 of the U.P. District Boards Act. Their contention was that by reason of Section 28 of the Indian Limitation Act the right of the District Board had been extinguished and accordingly the buildings could not be deemed to be encroachment on any land belonging to the District Board. The case of the defendant on the other hand was that the right of the District Board to remove the constructions still subsisted and the notice issued under Section 95 of the Act was a valid notice. According to the District Board, the constructions in dispute were encroachments on the public road and were liable to be removed. Other pleas taken in the case by the parties are not relevant for the present appeals.

3. The trial court held that the constructions in each case were more than thirty years old and accordingly the plaintiffs had in each case acquired title by reason of S.28 of the Indian Limitation Act and as a consequence the constructions were not liable to be removed. On this finding it held that the notices issued by the Dist. Board were unauthorised and could not be given effect to. The suits were accordingly decreed. The defendant went up in appeal against the decree passed in each suit. The appellate Court dismissed all the appeals on the finding that the constructions were more than thirty years old and were not liable to be removed. Against these decrees the present appeals were filed by the District Board.

4. The only point to be determined in these appeals is whether the plaintiffs had acquired title by reason of Section 28 of the Indian Limitation Act so as to make the constructions immune from demolition or removal by the District Board under the U. P. District Boards Act. The appellate Court's finding about the length of possession having not been found to be specific by the learned Judge who had heard the appeals earlier, the following issue was remitted to the Court below for a finding:

"When the encroachment in respect of which notice was issued by the District Board under Section 95 of the U. P. District Boards Act, 1922 was made by the concerned plaintiff?"

The finding returned by the Court below is to the effect that in each case the constructions were of more than thirty years standing. We have thus to proceed on the basis that on the date of issue of notice under Section 95 of the Act the constructions sought to be removed were more than thirty years old.

5. Section 28 of the Indian Limitation Act provides :

"At the determination of the period hereby limited to any person for instituting a suit for possession of any property his right to such property shall be extinguished."

6. The notice in the present cases had been given by the District Board. The question will be whether the District Board's right to institute a suit for possession had lapsed by reason of the period of limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act. The relevant Article according to the appellant applicable to such a suit is Article 146-A in the first Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. Article 146-A runs as under:

"By or on behalf of any local authority for possession of any public street or road or any part thereof from which it has been dispossessed or of which it has discontin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document