Decided on September 08,1960

Gouri Bala Choudhury Appellant


- (1.) This Rule is. directed against a decision of the learned Mumsif, Third Court, Midnapore, in the exercise of his Small Cause Court powers. The Petitioner was. the Plaintiff in the suit before the learned Munsif which was for realisation of his dues, under Section 22(2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act from the Defendant. The claim in the suit was for the years 1359 to 1361 B.S., for a fair and equitable sura for the use and occupation of the land in suit by the Defendant. The suit was filed some time in the year 1805 B.S. The learned Munsif was of the opinion that the only defence was. to the effect that, the Plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. This plea was accepted by the learned Munsif upon the view that the suit was governed by Article 115 of the Indian Limitation Act and he held that as. no part of the claim in question was within three years of the institution of the suit, the Plaintiff's entire claim was time-barred. In this view the learned Munsif dismissed the Plaintiff's suit.
(2.) Before me, Mr. Panda, who appears for the Plaintiff Petitioner has contended that the above view of the learned Munsif on the question of limitation is erroneous and the suit should be held governed by the residuary Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act and the Plaintiff's claim. if within 6 years of the suit, that is, within the period, as provided in the said article should be decreed and no part of it should be held barred by limitation.
(3.) In support of his contention, Mr. Panda relied on the decision of Mr. Justice M.C. Ghose in the case of Suresh Chandra Nag v. Kumud Kama Nag and Ors.,1937 41 CalWN 1090. That decision exactly covers the present question and it in based on certain. earlier decisions of this Court which, according to the said learned Judge, laid down the principle applicable to these cases.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.