AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Das, J.—I think the lower Appellate Court is right in the view which it has taken on the question of limitation. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11 of 1919 arises out of Suit No. 204 for possession of a portion of a house and the price of materials alleged to have been removed by the defendants. The Record of Rights was finally published on the 10th June 1910. Therefore the plaintiff must be presumed to have been in possession on the 10th June 1910. The suit was instituted on the 9th July 1917. Therefore the suit for possession of a portion of the house was clearly within time.
So far as the suit for materials is concerned, the question for my determinate in is whether Article 48 or Article 49 of the Limitation Act applies. Article 48 applies to suits for specific moveable property lost, or acquired by theft, or dishonest misappropriation or conversion. Article 49 applies to a suit for specific moveable property not falling within Article 48. It will be noticed that Article 49 is a general section and it will apply unless it is clearly established that the case comes under Article 48. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the plaint in order to see whether the case comes under Article 48. In my opinion, the plaint makes a definite case of conversion. I hold, therefore, that Article 48 applies and that the plaintiff is entitled to bring his suit within three years from the date when he first learns in whose possession the property is The plaintiff says that he came to know of the illegal acts of the defendant on the 31st May 1915, The suit, having been filed on the 10th July 1917, is clearly within time.
On these findings Miscellaneous Appeal No 11 of 1919 must be dismissed with costs.
I now come to Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 1919. The only point that has been argued before me is that the suit is in substance a suit for the correction of an entry in the Record of Rights and that, therefore, the suit not having been brought within six years from the date of the final publication of the Record of Rights is barred by limitation. I cannot agree that the suit is in substance a suit for the correction of an entry in the Record of Rights. The suit is a suit for possession and mesne profits, though the plaintiff has asked for a declaration that the entry in the Record of Rights is incorrect. It is well-settled'' that the 12 years'' rule applies to a suit of this nature. The suit is, therefore, within time. I would dismiss Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 1919 with costs.
It must be distinctly understood that for the purpose of these decisions I have assumed that every allegation in the plaint is correct. I have come to the conclusion that on the allegations made in the plaint the plaintiffs'' suits are not barred by limitation. It is, of course, still open to the trial Court to hold on evidence that the plaintiff''s suits are barred by limitation, but it must, of course, be guided by the principles which I have laid down in this judgment.