Deo Narayan Sahu and Another vs Ramanand Sahu and Another and Sidheshri Saran Singh and Others

Ross, J.—This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of a holding, The Munsif disarmed the suit, bat the Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiffs a decree.

The holding belonged to one Kishun Sahu and after his death it was in the possession of his mother. The plaintiffs are the reversioners. The findings of fast by the Munsif are that Musammat Basmatia abandoned the village and went to reside in her brother''s village and that the land in suit was abandoned by her. The Subordinate Judge says that he does not believe that Basmatia abandoned the holding, but even if she did, she abandoned only her life interest.

The first question in this appeal is whether Basmatia could abandon the holding or not. If it is contended that the observation of the Subordinate Judge is a finding of fast that there was no abandonment, then it is not a proper finding, because there is no consideration of the evidence and the case would have to go bask. But I do not think that that was what the Subordinate Judge intended to find, because he bases his judgment on his opinion that all that Basmatia could abandon was her life interest. The question is whether that is a sound proposition of law. I can see no ground for holding that a Hindu widow cannot abandon a holding. If she leaves the village and makes no arrangements for the payment of rent or the cultivation of the land, she landlord, in my opinion, is fully entitled to enter on the holding. The respondents rely on the occasion in Jumra Prasad Singh v. Basdeo Singh 50 Ind. Cas. 872 : 4 P.L.J. 548 : (1919) Pat. 245, where it was held that a Hindu widow has not an unqualified right to surrender a raiyati interest. But "surrender" and "abandonment" are different things. A surrender is an act of transfer which has to be justified by legal necessity, but I know of nothing to compel a Hindu widow to cultivate a holding or to continue to reside in the village, and if she does not, I see no reason why the landlord should not re enter. In my opinion, therefore, the holding was abandoned.

The other point in the case is that the suit is barred by limitation. The finding of the Munsif was that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were ever in possession of the land in suit, and further that the land was settled with the defendants who were in possession from 1312, This fit ding has not been disturbed by the Subordinate Judge, who holds against the plea of limitation on the ground that a Hindu reversioner is entitled to come within twelve years of the death of the holder of life interest. The case is plainly covered by the special law of limitation, whish provides two years from the date of dispossession for the recovery of an occupancy holding. Time will begin to run from the date of abandonment, and not from the date of the death of Basmatia, because on her abandoning the holding the reversioners'' right to possession, if any, accrued. But even if time, ran from the date of Basmatia''s death, the finding of both the Courts is that she died 7 or 8 years before the suit. In any case, therefore, the suit is barred by time.

The result is that the appeal must succeed on both the grounds that have been urged. The appeal is decreed with costs and the suit is dismissed with costs in the lower Courts.