1. There is no force in this appeal. The plaintiff's father sold a certain 5 biswas share of the family property to the defendant Komal Singh and also relinquished sir plots. In accordance with the relinquishment Komal Singh was put in possession. The plaintiff did not attack the sale itself as a member of a joint Hindu family who had not joined in the sale but took the line of claiming the sir plots which were relinquished by his father. Both the subordinate Courts held that once relinquishment was given effect to the plaintiff could not succeed. The difference in their opinion consisted of this that while the trial Court was of opinion that Komal Singh had obtained possession over plots in group A only the lower appellate Court held that Komal Singh had obtained possession over plots in all the three groups narrated in the plaint. Admittedly the plaintiff came to Court more than six months after the ejectment. It was argued here that the period of limitation of 12 years will apply and not six months: (1) because there was no wrongful ejectment but a voluntary making over of possession by the manager of the joint family to Komal Singh and (2) that the ejectment not having been made by the entire body of the proprietors of the mahal, the ejectment by Komal Singh alone was in the nature of an ejectment by a trespasser, as held in Chedda v. Achu Singh A.I.R. 1924 All. 572. In para. 11 of the plaint the plaintiff himself alleged forcible ejectment. What he said was:
after the decision of the appellate revenue Court mentioned above defendant 1 with the help of a large number of his partisans forcibly entered into possession of the plots mentioned in list A in the month of December 1921.
2. The lower appellate Court has recorded a finding of fact that Komal Singh entered into possession of all 'the plots at that time. Clearly therefore wrongful possession is alleged.
3. As to the second ground the wording of Section 99 of the present Agra Tenancy Act is different from the wording of the corresponding Section 79, Tenancy Act of 1901. The Tenancy Act will apply now even where ejectment was made by any person claiming as landholder, to have a right to eject the plaintiff. It is not necessary that only the landholder that is, all the proprietors of a mahal should eject a tenant in order to give jurisdiction to the revenue Court. It is sufficient if any person claimed to have the right to eject as landholder and ejected the plaintiff In such a case also a suit will lie in the revenue Court and the shorter period of limitation will apply. The defendant on the basis of the document of relinquishment claimed as landholder a right to eject the plaintiff and ejected him accordingly. The remedy of the plaintiff therefore lay under Section 99, Tenancy Act. I dismiss this appeal with costs.