1. This is an appeal on behalf of the judgment-debtor, and the only point is whether the application for execution was barred by limitation. The judgment-debtor's case was that the application was governed by the special law of limitation laid down in Article 6 of Schedule 3, Goalpara Tenancy Act, read with Section 177 of that Act which makes the provisions of the Act applicable to suits and proceedings in respect of claims arising out of fishery rights. The decree under execution in this case was in respect of the rent of a fishery. The decreeolder repelled the plea of the judgment-debtor on the ground that at the date of the suit the relationship of landlord and tenant did not subsist between the parties. There are numerous decisions of this Court which lay down that the special law of limitation under the Bengal Tenancy Act would not apply, if the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased to exist at the date of the suit and also at the date of the execution case. The same principle will apply to cases under the Goalpara Tenancy Act. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has specifically found that at the date of the suit the lease was no longer in force. Therefore, the condition for making the provisions of the special law of limitation applicable was wanting. The learned Advocate for the appellant argued that there was no evidence before the Court to justify this finding. I am unable to accept this argument, because there is on the record the plaint in the rent suit in which the decree under execution was passed, and it shows that at the date of the suit the parties had ceased to stand in the relation of landlord and tenant. There is no rebutting evidence on the side of the judgment-debtor. On the finding of the lower appellate Court I must consequently hold that the plea of limitation had been successfully met by the decree-holder.
2. The result is that the appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs, hearing-fee one gold mohur.