1. The only question in this case is whether the suit is barred by the special limitation contained in Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
2. The dispossession admittedly took place two years before the suit, but the Court below overruled the objection as to special limitation on the ground that the relation of landlord and tenant is not admitted on any side.
3. The applicability of the special limitation does not depend upon the admission of the parties. It must, however, be shown that there was relation of landlord and tenant between the parties. The land is owned by the defendant No. 1 as part of his putni taluk, and it appears from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that there was a compromise decree te which both the plaintiffs and the defendants were parties. Under the terms of that compromise the defendant No, i was to realise rent from the tenants of his putni taluk. That being so, there was relation of landlord and tenant between the parties and dispossession having taken place more than two years before the institution of the suit, the case would some under Article 3, Schedule III.
4. It is contended that the dispossession was by the landlord not in his capacity as the decree-holder, but in a different capacity. It is pointed out that special limitation does not apply where the landlord dispossesses the tenant as auction-purchaser, and reference is made to the cases of Nabin Chandra Shaha v. Sheikh Wajid 58 Ind. Cas. 598 : 24 C.W.N. 382 : 31 C.L.J. 199 and Haren Chandra Barai v. Hari Charan Barai (Madan Mohan Barai) 61 Ind. Cas. (sic) : 25 C.W.N. 102.
5. But the case of the landlord as auction-purchaser stands on a different footing from a case like this. That question was dealt with in the case of Nabin Chandra Shaha v. Sheikh Wajid 58 Ind. Cas. 598 : 24 C.W.N. 382 : 31 C.L.J. 199. It is unnecessary, however, to discuss the matter, because in the present case there was no sale at all. The defendant No. 1 obtained a decree for rent against the defendant No. 2 and in execution of the decree attached the crops and subsequently cut them and thereby dispossessed the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. In the present case we think that the dispossession was by the landlord and that the special limitation of two years applies to the case.
6. That being so, the decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit is dismissed.
7. No order as to costs.