Skip to content


Jai Kishen and ors. Vs. Ram Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Tenancy
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR20All519
AppellantJai Kishen and ors.
RespondentRam Lal
Excerpt:
act no, xv of 1877 (indian limitation act), schedule ii, article 32 - suit for removal of trees from tenant's holding--limitation--jurisdiction--civil and revenue courts act no. xii of 1881 (n.-w p. rent act), section 93. - - that article has clearly no application to this suit, which is not a suit for possession. 446, article 32 was held to be applicable to a suit like the present......upwards of two years after the trees were planted. the lower appellate court has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, applying article 32 of the second schedule to the indian limitation act, 1877. in appeal it is contended that the suit is governed by article 144 of the second schedule to the limitation act. that article has clearly no application to this suit, which is not a suit for possession. in the case of gangadhar v. zahurriya i.l.r. 8 all. 446, article 32 was held to be applicable to a suit like the present. that was a ruling of tyrrell and mahmood, jj., and that ruling was concurred in by straight, j., in musharaf ali v. iftkhar husain i.l.r. 10 all. 634. the appeal therefore dannot be sustained. i may add that, in my opinion, the cognizance of the suit by the civil.....
Judgment:

Aikman, J.

1. The plaintiffs, who are appellants here, brought a suit for the removal of certain trees which had been planted by the defendant on the land which he held from the plaintiffs for cultivation. The suit was brought Upwards of two years after the trees were planted. The Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, applying Article 32 of the second schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. In appeal it is contended that the suit is governed by Article 144 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act. That article has clearly no application to this suit, which is not a suit for possession. In the case of Gangadhar v. Zahurriya I.L.R. 8 All. 446, Article 32 was held to be applicable to a suit like the present. That was a ruling of Tyrrell and Mahmood, JJ., and that ruling was concurred in by Straight, J., in Musharaf Ali v. Iftkhar Husain I.L.R. 10 All. 634. The appeal therefore dannot be sustained. I may add that, in my opinion, the cognizance of the suit by the Civil Court was barred by the provisions of Section 93 of Aot No. XII of 1881, and in this opinion I am fortified by the decision in Deodat Tiwari v. Gopi Misr Weekly Notes, 1882, p. 102. I dismiss this appeal, but without costs, as the respondent is not represented.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //