Skip to content


A. Subbanna and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council Through the Collector of North Arcot - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad981(1); 31Ind.Cas.267
AppellantA. Subbanna and ors.
RespondentThe Secretary of State for India in Council Through the Collector of North Arcot
Cases Referred and Raghunath Prasad v. Kaniz Rasul
Excerpt:
inam - faiture of inamdar to fulfil condition--order of resumption--suit for declaration of inamdar's right to hold land free of assessment, when maintainable--suit for cancellation of order of resumption--limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i articles 14, 131. - .....without getting the collector's order resuming the dasabandam inim set aside, see parbati nath dutt v. rajmohun dutt 6 c.w.n. 92 and raghunath prasad v. kaniz rasul 24 a.a 467 : (1902) a.w.n. 116 and for this purpose he was under article 14 of the limitation act bound to bring his suit within one year of the passing of that order. the present suit having been filed in (sic) twelve years after the order is clearly time-barred. we are asked to treat the collector's order as a nullity, but it is clearly not so.3. the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The main relief asked for in the plaint was a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to hold the land free of assessment. The other relief which was to recover the assessment collected by the Government for one year, was merely consequential upon the establishment of the right asserted by the plaintiff. It is argued that the suit was in effect one to establish a periodically recurring right for which the limitation period is 12 years under Article 131, Limitation Act.

2. But it is clear that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain such a declaration without getting the Collector's order resuming the dasabandam inim set aside, see Parbati Nath Dutt v. Rajmohun Dutt 6 C.W.N. 92 and Raghunath Prasad v. Kaniz Rasul 24 A.a 467 : (1902) A.W.N. 116 and for this purpose he was under Article 14 of the Limitation Act bound to bring his suit within one year of the passing of that order. The present suit having been filed in (sic) twelve years after the order is clearly time-barred. We are asked to treat the Collector's order as a nullity, but it is clearly not so.

3. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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