Back
1927 Supreme(Nagpur) 174
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Hallifax
DHARMU AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
DALSINGH – Respondent
Decided on : 24-08-1927
The deliberate abstention of the legislature from extending the provisions of Section 28, Limitation Act, to the tenancy lands in the Central Provinces influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Section 28 - Limitation Act - Tenancy Rights - The court dismissed the appeal contending that Section 28 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the right in a tenancy, despite Section 104(4) of the Tenancy Act, 1920 stating otherwise. The court referred to previous reasoning but found it to be made without reference to the relevant provision of the Tenancy Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants contended that Section 28 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the right in a tenancy, despite Section 104(4) of the Tenancy Act, 1920 stating otherwise.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal without notice to the respondent, citing the reasoning given at considerable length and the deliberate abstention of the legislature from extending the provisions of Section 28, Limitation Act, to the tenancy lands in the Central Provinces.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 28, Limitation Act, and Section 104(4), Tenancy Act, 1920
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the reasoning given in support of the contention was made without reference to the relevant provision of the Tenancy Act, and the deliberate abstention of the legislature from extending the provisions of Section 28, Limitation Act, to the tenancy lands in the Central Provinces.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed without notice to the respondent.
Hallifax, A J C—Mr. J. Sen has been heard for the appellants. Their contention is that Section 28, Limitation Act, does not apply to the right in a tenancy, although Section 104 (4), Tenancy Act, 1920, says in so many words that it does. That is at first sight preposterous, but in support of it I have been referred to the reasons stated by one of the Judges of this Court in Banan v. Ranjitsingh, 1926 AIR(Nag) 99. The basis of the whole of the reasoning which is given at considerable length appears to be in the statement that the legislature have deliberately abstained from extending the provisions of Section 28, Limitation Act, to the tenancy lands in the Central Provinces.
2. The statement seems to have been made without reference to Section 104 (4), Tenancy Act, 1920, of which there appears to be no mention in the judgment. The appeal is dismissed without notice to the respondent.
Final Result : Dismissed
