AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question is exactly covered by the decision in Bailur Krishna Rau v. Lakshmana Shaubhogue 1 Ind, Dec. 1046. Here the defendant''s claim
to the property was disallowed, it being found by the Court which enquired into his petition of claim that he had no title to the property. He never
sought to set aside the order. On the other hand he trespassed upon the property after possession had been given by the Court to the plaintiff.
Then the plaintiff brought a suit and the suit happened to have been filed within one year of the order passed on the claim petition of the defendant.
The defendant filed a written statement claiming, the property as his own. The learned District Judge has held, following the case which we have
cited, Bailur Krishna Rau v. Lakshmana Shanbhogue 1 Ind Dec. 1046. that the order on the claim of the defendant was ''conclusive'' as stated in
Order XXI, Rule 63 : and the mere fact that the suit was instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the property from the defendant within
one year of that order and the defendant put in a written statement also within that time, would make no difference. It is not suggested that the
decision in Bailur Krishn Rau v. Lakshmana Shanbhogue 1 Ind Dec. 1046. has been dissented from in a later decision of this Court, though it is
stated that there are some rulings of other High Courts to the contrary. We follow the ruling of this Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.