Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal No. 838 of 1959, decided on 20th January 1962.

Limitation Act (IX of 1908),

Art. 14‑Suit for declaration and confirmation of possession‑Entries in record‑of‑rights cannot be made pertaining to question of title‑Suit for declaration of posses sion and title, therefore, cannot be construed as one against order of revenue authorities‑Article 14 not applicable.

Gangu and others v. Mahanraj Chand and others A I R 1934 Lah. 384 and Raghunath Prasad and other v. Kaniz Rasul and another I L R 24 All. 467 distinguished.

Azizuddin Ahmed for Appellants.

A. K. M. Nurul Islam for Respondent No.1.

This appeal is at the instance of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Barisal affirming those passed by the learned Munsif in a suit for declaration of title and for confirmation of possession.

2. The plaintiff's declaration has been given by both the Courts. Mr. Azlzuddin Ahmed, the learned Advocate for the appellants in this appeal, does not challenge the findings of the Courts below regarding the title of the plaintiffs and possession but his only contention is that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in not holding that the suit is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of Article 14 of the Limitation Act.

3. The learned Subordinate Judge has observed on this point as follows :‑

"The present suit is not for setting aside the order of Revenue Authorities but for a declaration of plaintiff's title to the land in suit land and as such, in my opinion Article 14 of the Limitation Act is not applicable."

Referring to this observation of the learned Subordinate Judge, it has been contended by Mr. Azizuddin Ahmed that the claim in the suit in effect is for declaration that order passed by the revenue authorities is not binding on the plaintiffs. He has, in support of this contention, relied on the case of Gangu and others v. Mahanrai Chand and others (I L R 24 All. 467) and the case of Raghunath Prasad and others v. Kaniz Rasul and another (A I R 1934 Lah. 384). We have gone through these decisions and we find that these two decisions have no bearing to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4. In our opinion, the recording by the revenue authorities while preparing the records‑of‑rights has nothing to do with the question of title. They have not been given any authority under the Act to declare the title of any person and if any such recording is made that is without jurisdiction. Here in the present case the plaintiff has prayed for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. His suit for title is not barred; and the entries as to possession can be investigated in such a suit by the Civil Court in order to see whether the entries were made without any foundation and if it is found that the entries have no legs to stand on then the entries as to possession will not be conclusive. Then again, even if it is found that entries are correct, then the Court having in view the entries as to possession on the date of final publication, can decide whether the plaintiff's title, if any, has been lost by adverse possession. So in our opinion Article 14 of the Limitation Act has no application in the present case and the suit is not barred by limitation.

5. In the result we find that this appeal fails and is accord ingly dismissed without any order as to costs. The judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court are affirmed.

K. B. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.