Skip to content


Raghubir Singh and ors. Vs. Musammat Lakhan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in61Ind.Cas.885
AppellantRaghubir Singh and ors.
RespondentMusammat Lakhan
Excerpt:
u.p. land revenue act (iii of 1904), section iii - partition proceedings--title, question of--civil suit--limitation. - - 2. the present suit was brought on the 10th of may 1917, it relates not only to the village which was the subj9st of the partition, but to other villages as well in which the plaintiff is said to have an interest. the decision of the court below on this point is clearly right......is whether a portion of the plaintiff's claim is barred by section 111 of the (united provinces) land revenue act. it appears that certain partition proceedings took place in which raghubir singh, the plaintiff, was concerned. raghubir singh, having raised a question of title in the ravenue court, was directed by the partition officer to file a suit in a civil court under section 111 of the land revenue act (iii of 1901); the date of the order was 7th february 1917. the partition proceeding in the course of which the above order was made related to one village only, namely, shah muhiuddinpur.2. the present suit was brought on the 10th of may 1917, it relates not only to the village which was the subj9st of the partition, but to other villages as well in which the plaintiff is said to.....
Judgment:

1. This is a plaintiff's appeal. The only question of law which is raised is whether a portion of the plaintiff's claim is barred by Section 111 of the (United Provinces) Land Revenue Act. It appears that certain partition proceedings took place in which Raghubir Singh, the plaintiff, was concerned. Raghubir Singh, having raised a question of title in the Ravenue Court, was directed by the partition officer to file a suit in a Civil Court under Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act (III of 1901); the date of the order was 7th February 1917. The partition proceeding in the course of which the above order was made related to one village only, namely, Shah Muhiuddinpur.

2. The present suit was brought on the 10th of May 1917, It relates not only to the village which was the subJ9st of the partition, but to other villages as well in which the plaintiff is said to have an interest.

3. As regards Shah Muhiuddinpur an objection was taken, in accordance with the provisions of Section 111 of the Lind Revenue Act that the suit was beyond time. That objection was upheld, and we agree with the decision of the lower Appellate Court on this paint. There can be no doubt whatever that on the language of Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act the plaintiff was not competent to maintain the suit regarding Shah Muhiuddinpur after a period of three months had elapsed from the date of the Revenue Court's order. The decision of the Court below on this point is clearly right. The only other grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal relate to findings of fact. We consider that there is no force in them.

4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs, including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


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