Skip to content


Hakim NaziruddIn and anr. Vs. Musammat Achchi Begam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in64Ind.Cas.988
AppellantHakim NaziruddIn and anr.
RespondentMusammat Achchi Begam
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901) sections 163, 164 - suit for profits--limitation. - - looking at it from this point of view, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and was rightly dismissed......in 1322 and 1323 fasli for the years 1319--1321 fasli. both the courts below have dismissed the suit as barred by limitation and, in our opinion, rightly. the limitation governing a suit under section 164 of the tenancy act is laid down in the fourth schedule, group b, serial number 16, and is three years from the time when the share of the profits became payable. in section 163 of the act it is enacted that 'in the absence of any determination of the date by the settlement officer or of an express agreement among the co-sharers, profits shall be divisible on such dates as the local government may, by rules made under the act, prescribe.' it seems to us that profits are payable under section 164 when they are divisible under section 163. in this case apparently the latest date on.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises but of a suit for profits under Section 164 of the Tenancy Act by a co-sharer against a Lambardar. The suit was filed on the 29th of January 1919, that is to say, in 1326 Fasli. The plaintiff seated to be a co-sharer in 1322 Fasli. The profits claimed were the profits for the years 1319 to 1321 Fasli, On the face of it, it is obvious that the suit is time-barred. It is alleged, however, that this is not so because the collections were actually made in 1322 and 1323 Fasli for the years 1319--1321 Fasli. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit as barred by limitation and, in our opinion, rightly. The limitation governing a suit under Section 164 of the Tenancy Act is laid down in the Fourth Schedule, Group B, Serial Number 16, and is three years from the time when the share of the profits became payable. In Section 163 of the Act it is enacted that 'in the absence of any determination of the date by the Settlement Officer or of an express agreement among the co-sharers, profits shall be divisible on such dates as the Local Government may, by rules made under the Act, prescribe.' It seems to us that profits are payable under Section 164 when they are divisible under Section 163. In this case apparently the latest date on which the plaintiffs could rely would be the 1st August of the Fasli year when the profits were divisible. Looking at it from this point of view, the suit is clearly barred by limitation and was rightly dismissed. In our opinion, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs,


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