( 1. ) THIS Second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, vidisha, in Civil Appeal No. 139-A of 1971 dated 4th April 1972 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Class II, kurwai, dated I8th September 1970, in Civil Suit No. 5i-A of 1968, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant as barred by time.

( 2. ) THE facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that Pragsingh, randhirsingh and Jujharsingh were the original holders of land including the land in dispute. A draft-statement was prepared under the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the act,) and was published as contemplated under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 thereof. It is not in dispute that an intimation or notice of this draft-statement was not given to the plaintiff-appellant, but it appears that having learnt about it, an objection was filed by the plaintiff-appellant which was rejected by the competent Authority by his order dated 30th December 1967 holding that the objections were filed beyond time provided in Section II of the Act.

( 3. ) IN the year 1963, the three original holders had filed a suit against the plaintiff-appellant for possession of the suit land on the allegation that the appellant has trespassed over that land and is in unautherised occupation. This suit was dismissed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge Class II, kurwai, in Civil Suit No. 61-A 1963, decided on I6th August 1965. In this decision, it was held that the present appellant being in possession for more than 12 years the suit filed by the three holders, viz. Prag Singh, Randhirsingh and Jujhar Singh, was barred by time. The objections filed by the plaintiff-appellant were rejected by the Competent Authority by his order dated 30th december 1967, the plaintiff-appellant, has filed the present suit on 20th june 1968 after giving a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the respondent State. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that it was barred by time as Sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act provided that the suit should have been filed within three months from the date of the order rejecting the objections by the Competent Authority. According to the plaintiff, it was alleged that he had no intimation about the order of the Competent Authority delivered on 30th December 1967 but he learnt about it in the month of March 1968 whereas it was pleaded by the respondent state that the order of the Competent Authority was in fact noted by the counsel of the plaintiff-appellant on 31st January 1968, and, therefore, the suit filed on 20th June 1968 was beyond the period of three months.

( 4. ) IT is not in dispute that the learned courts below came to a finding of fact that counsel of the plaintiff-appellant noted the order of the Competent authority on 31st January 1968, and therefore, even if the plaintiff-appellant had not known the date of the order but as his counsel noted the order on 31st January 1968, the period of limitation started running from that date. The learned courts below also came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant was not given a notice under sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the act as the plaintiff-appellant was not a sub-tenant claiming to be an occupancy tenant.

( 5. ) AGAINST this Judgment, the plaintiff-appellant has filed the Second appeal. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant:-

(i) that as the plaintiff-appellant was not a party to the ceiling proceedings before the Competent Authority under sections 9 and 10 nor a notice was served on the plaintiff-appellant as contemplated under subsection (2) of Section 11, the limitation contemplated under sub-section (5)of Section 11 of the Act will not apply to the suit filed by the plaintiff as the plaintiff in this suit has claimed a declaration that the Ceiling proceedings and the draft statemen