AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Coutts, J.—This was a suit for declaration of note right in certain land. The suit was deemed in respect of Khata No. 86, but it was dismissed in respect of Khatas Nos. 85 and 87, on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation.
The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of the land as an occupancy raiyat and it was bold by the lower Appellate Court that the special rule of limitation in Schedule III to the Bengal Tenancy Act applied to the case.
3.It is argued before us that the special rule of limitation does not apply, because the dispossession was not with regard to the whole holding, but only with regard to a portion. No authority has been sited before us, nor do I knew any snob, authority. Article 3 applies to waits to recover possession of a land claimed by the plaintiff as an occupancy raiyat and not for recovery of possession of a ''holding,'' and I see no reason why the interpretation of the Article should be limited as suggested, The view which has been taken by the lower Appellate Court appears to me to be the correct view and I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
The respondents will not be entitled to execute their decree until the deficit Court-fee which is due from them has been deposited.
Ross, J.
I agree