Ram Lal Rai Vs. Musammat Murta Kuer and anr. - Court Judgment
|Judge||Rafique and ;Lindsay, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1923All361; 75Ind.Cas.676|
|Appellant||Ram Lal Rai|
|Respondent||Musammat Murta Kuer and anr.|
limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 118--suit for declaration that adoption invalid--limitation, terminus a quo. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - the present suit is merely for declaratory relief and article 118 is clearly applicable.1. this appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that the adoption of bisbunath rai, defendant no. 2, by musammat murta kuer, the widow of basudeo rai, on the 24th of january 1908, under a registered-deed was null and invalid for reasons given in the plaint and for a further declaration that be, the plaintiff-appellant, was a reversioner of basudeo rai. a similar suit, it seems, was brought by the plaintiff-appellant in 1912 which he withdrew with leave to bring a fresh one, if so advised. one of the objections taken to the present suit was that the claim was barred under article 118 of the indian limitation act.2. the learned subordinate judge in whose court the suit was file i on the 8th of december 1919 allowed the plea of limitation and.....
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration that the adoption of Bisbunath Rai, defendant No. 2, by Musammat Murta Kuer, the widow of Basudeo Rai, on the 24th of January 1908, under a registered-deed was null and invalid for reasons given in the plaint and for a further declaration that be, the plaintiff-appellant, was a reversioner of Basudeo Rai. A similar suit, it seems, was brought by the plaintiff-appellant in 1912 which he withdrew with leave to bring a fresh one, if so advised. One of the objections taken to the present suit was that the claim was barred under Article 118 of the Indian limitation Act.
2. The learned Subordinate Judge in whose Court the suit was file I on the 8th of December 1919 allowed the plea of limitation and dismissed the claim. In appeal before us it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the view of law taken by the Court below is not sound. It is argued that, if the adoption is void ab initio, Article 118 would not apply. We are unable to accede to this contention. The language of Article 118 of the Indian Limitation Act is quite clear. Time begins to run from the date of the knowledge of the alleged adoption. Had the plaintiff been suing for possession on the ground that he was the reversioner of Basudeo Rai, and had he further alleged that the adoption of Basudeo Rai was invalid under the Hindu Law, Article 118 would not have been applicable and the plaintiff would have had twelve years within which to sue. The present suit is merely for declaratory relief and Article 118 is clearly applicable.
3. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs including fees in this Court on the higher scale.