Back
Allahbad High Court
H.N.SETH
Salik Ram Adya Prasad - Appellant
Versus
Ram Lakhan - Respondent
Decided On : 03/21/1972
LIMITATION ACT, 1908 - SECTION 14 - U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - SECTIONS 180, 183, 202, 204 - U. P. TENANCY ACT - SECTIONS 180, 183 - CAUSE OF ACTION - EXTENSION OF LIMITATION - SUIT FOR EJECTMENT OF ASAMI - WHETHER SUIT BARRED BY LIMITATION - WHETHER PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SECTION 14 OF THE LIMITATION ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the ejectment of the defendant from the plot in dispute. The defendant claimed that he acquired Sirdari rights under Section 204 of the Act as no suit for his ejectment was filed within three years of the death of the landlord, Smt. Lakhpatti. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as they had filed a previous suit under Sections 180/183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act for the ejectment of the defendant, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs failed to file a suit for ejectment of the defendant within three years of the death of Smt. Lakhpatti. The court further held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as the cause of action for the suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was different from the cause of action for the suit under Sections 180/183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs failed to file a suit for ejectment of the defendant within three years of the death of Smt. Lakhpatti. The court relied on Section 204 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which provides that an Asami acquires Sirdari rights if no suit for his ejectment is filed within three years of the death of the landlord. 2. The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as the cause of action for the suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was different from the cause of action for the suit under Sections 180/183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. The court held that the cause of action for the suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was the defendant's possession of the plot as an Asami, while the cause of action for the suit under Sections 180/183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act was the defendant's taking or retaining possession of the plot without the consent of the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the judgment of the Assistant Collector dated 30th November, 1964 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for ejectment. The court also directed the parties to bear their own costs of the writ petition.
2. Respondents Ram Lakhan and Jagdish Prasad filed a suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the ejectment of petitioner Salik Ram from plot No. 1386 village Mahokhari, on 21st September, 1961. According to the plaint, one Bindeshwari was hereditary tenant of a number of plots including the plot in dispute. On his death, his widow Smt. Lakhpatti inherited these plots. She got the plot in dispute settled with the petitioner Salikram. Kalidin, father of the two plaintiffs, claiming to be the reversioner of Bindeshwari, filed a suit under Section 183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act which was decreed by the trial Court, but in appeal it was held that the name of Smt. Lakhpatti should continue to be recorded as tenant during her lifetime. Thereafter, Smt. Lakhpatti made an attempt to get Salik Ram declared Bhumidhar of the plot in dispute by getting ten times of the rent deposited. She also managed to put Salik Ram in possession over the plot. Kalidin then filed another suit, under Sections 180/183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, for the ejectment of Salik Ram. The matter went up to the Board of Revenue which held that as Salik Ram was in cultivatory possession over the plot in 1359 Fasli, became an Asami and therefore the plaintiff could not eject him in a suit under Sections 180/183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act. Smt. Lakhpatti died in January, 1954 and was succeeded by Kalidin. On Kalidin's death, rights in the plots devolved upon the two plaintiffs. They asked Salik Ram to vacate the plot by the end of June, 1961, but Salik Ram refused to comply with their request. The plaintiffs therefore filed the suit under Section 202 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the ejectment of Salik Ram.
3. Salik Ram contested the suit inter alia on the ground that Smt. Lakhpatti had surrendered the plot in dispute to the Zamindar who executed a Patta in his favour on 8th of September, 1945. He has been in possession over the plot ever since then in his own rights. Further, he acquired Bhumidhari Sanad on 20th March, 1950 and claimed that he was Bhumidhar of the plot in dispute. In any case, the suit for his ejectment as Asami was barred by time.
4. On the question of limitation, it was urged before the trial Court that Smt. Lakhpatti died on 5th of January, 1954 and therefore a suit for ejectment of the petitioner, as an Asami, could be filed only upto 30th June, 1957. The suit having been filed on 21st September, 1961, was hopelessly barred by time and that the defendant acquired Sirdari rights under Section 204 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This plea was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that plaintiff's father had already filed a suit under Sections 180/183 of the U. P. Tenancy Act for the ejectment of the petitioner. This suit was pending in January, 1954 when Smt. Lakhpatti died. It was ultimately dismissed by the Board of Revenue and an application for review of Board's Judgment was rejected on 20th February, 1961. It held that the plaintiff was entitled to extension of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, and the suit was not barred by time. On merits it held that the defendant did not acquire any right on the basis of the patta dated 8th of September, 1945 but his position was merely that of an Asami under Section 21 (1) (h) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In the result the suit for petitioner's ejectment was decreed. Decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed both by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. An application for review of Board's order also failed. Salik Ram has filed the p
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
