Gobind Ojha and others vs Sita Ram Ojha and others

Varma, J.—This appeal is concluded by findings of fact. The plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration of their exclusive title to khewat No. 3/13 to realise the entire rent from khata Nos. 228 to 231, and they also prayed for a declaration that the Re-visional Survey entries with regard to khewat No. 3/13, recording defendants 1 to 10 as joint, were wrong. The trial Court was of opinion that the suit was time barred, as it was not proved by the plaintiffs that they were in exclusive possession of the property for the prescribed period. The trial Court was also of opinion that the suit was not maintainable in the form in which it was filed and also found that the entry was correct. On appeal the lower Court has held that the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of the holdings in suit. It was also found that by private arrangement there was a partition and the lower appellate Court took pains to point out that the entry in the khewat, so far as it included defendants 1 to 10, was inequitable and he has referred to various details from which he concludes that they could not have been joint with the plaintiffs. Mr. Gaindhari Prasad Singh for the defendant-appellants has urged that the suit is barred by limitation and referred to 1 Pat L J 73 Amiruddin v. Saidut Rahman, 1916 Pat 408 = 35 I C 433 = 1 Pat L J 73. No doubt a suit filed for the correction of the Survey record of rights ought to have been filed within six years. But here, on the findings of the lower appellate Court, this question does not arise because the lower appellate Court has found that the plaintiffs were in exclusive possession declaring their title to the holdings in dispute and therefore holds that the entry in the Survey record of rights is incorrect.

The suit is not for a correction of the record of rights, but for a declaration that the plaintiffs have got an exclusive title in respect of the property. Then the other point urged is that the finding that defendants 1 to 10 were in joint possession with the plaintiffs has not been upset by the lower appellate Court. But from a perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it is clear that, if the lower appellate Court has done anything, it has upset that finding. I would therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.