Skip to content


Gour Chandra Chakraburtty Vs. Maharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in36Ind.Cas.829
AppellantGour Chandra Chakraburtty
RespondentMaharaja Birendra Kishore Manikya Bahadur and ors.
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - non-payment of rent--venial of landlord's title--claim, for possession--limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, articles 144, 139--adverse possession. - .....and other tenants reported in the 22nd volume of the calcutta law journal which have been cited are exactly in point. that being so we ought to set aside the decision of the learned district judge and agree with the munsif and hold that the present suit is barred by limitation. in that view the appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed. the plaintiff will pay to the defendant-appellant his costs in this court as well as in the court below.
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal from the decision of the learned District Judge of Noakhali dated the 24th January 1913 reversing the decision of the Munsif of the Second Court at Feni The suit was brought by the plaintiff the Maharaja of Tipperah to recover possession of certain lands. The suit has been decided on the question of limitation. The first Court found that the suit was barred by limitation. The second Court held that the suit was not barred by limitation and remanded the case to the first Court for trial on the merits the question we have got to decide is whether the suit was barred by limitation. According to the allegations of the plaintiff in his plaint the defendants were his tenants and they had for many years not paid any rent to him. The defendants denied their liability to pay rent.

2. A preliminary issue on the question of limitations was tried and from the evidence which is chiefly documentary it appears I that in certain Settlement proceedings in the year 1894 a contest arose between the Maharaja on one side and the defendants on the other side, the defendants alleging that they held the lands on a Brahmotter grant and that they were exempted altogether from the liability to pay rent. The Settlement Officer came to the conclusion that rent was not being paid and there fore the Record of Rights was published to the effect that the defendants held a jote for which rent was not being paid. The question is whether this suit not having been brought before 1910 is barred by limitation. There is no doubt that, in 1894, the present defend ants set up a claim that they were not liable to pay rent on any ground. They denied absolutely their liability to pay rent although they supported the Brahmotter grant which had no existence Notwithstanding that they denied the plaintiff's right to recover rent from them and accordingly the suit ought to have been brought within twelve years of the denial of the plaintiff,s title Similar cases Between the Maharaja and other tenants reported in the 22nd Volume of the Calcutta Law Journal which have been cited are exactly in point. That being so we ought to set aside the decision of the learned District Judge and agree with the Munsif and hold that the present suit is barred by limitation. In that view the appeal is allowed and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed. The plaintiff will pay to the defendant-appellant his costs in this Court as well as in the Court below.


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