Skip to content


Muhammad Shafi Vs. Babu Bindeshri Saran Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1924All443; 75Ind.Cas.266
AppellantMuhammad Shafi
RespondentBabu Bindeshri Saran Singh
Excerpt:
limitation a of (ix of 1908) section 144 - trees planted on land of another without his consent--suit for removal of trees and possession of land--limitation. - - the claim being one for possession it was clearly within time, the period of limitation applicable being twelve years......found that the land belongs to the plaintiff; that it is waste land; and that the defendant had planted trees or the plaintiff's land without having any right to do so. it was further found that the trees were planted within twelve years prior to the institution of the suit. the claim being one for possession it was clearly within time, the period of limitation applicable being twelve years. reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on the ruling of this court in musharaf ali v. i ftkhar husain 10 a. 634 : a.w.n. (1888) 257 : 6 ind. dec : (n.s.) 427. in that case the real question was whether the limitation applicable was that presented by alt. 32. it does not appear that the claim in that case was one for possession and, therefore, that case cannot be deemed to be an authority.....
Judgment:

1. In our opinion there is no force in this appeal. The plaintiff in his plaint claimed the ownership of the land on which the defendant had planted certain trees and he asked for the removal of the trees and for possession of the land. He also asks for further reliefs. It has been found that the land belongs to the plaintiff; that it is waste land; and that the defendant had planted trees or the plaintiff's land without having any right to do so. It was further found that the trees were planted within twelve years prior to the institution of the suit. The claim being one for possession it was clearly within time, the period of limitation applicable being twelve years. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant on the ruling of this Court in Musharaf Ali v. I ftkhar Husain 10 A. 634 : A.W.N. (1888) 257 : 6 Ind. Dec : (N.S.) 427. In that case the real question was whether the limitation applicable was that presented by Alt. 32. It does not appear that the claim in that case was one for possession and, therefore, that case cannot be deemed to be an authority in favour of the appellant's contention. The appeal, in our opinion, is untenable. We accordingly dismiss it with costs.


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