Devadoss, J - (1.)The plaintiff's suit is for possession of a house with mesne profits. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit but on appeal the District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation under Art. 47 of the Limitation Act. The only point in this Second Appeal is whether Art. 47 applies to the plaintiff's suit.
(2.)The plaintiff purchased the plaint house on 20 June 1919. There was a possession case between the plaintiff and the defendants in 1919 and the Subdivisional First Class Magistrate at Tanjore passed an order on 19 August 1919 in plaintiff's favour.
(3.)The plaintiff presented his plaint on 21-12-22, that is, more than three years after the date of the order of the First Class Magistrate. The learned District Judge held that the plaintiff's suit ought to have been brought within three years of the order of the Magistrate. The question is, is the plaintiff in whose favour an order under Section 145 of the Criminal P. C. has been passed to bring a suit within three years for recovery of possession of the property which was the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Magistrate? The order is in these terms: I am satisfied that the petitioner was in possession of the house on 13-7-19 and that he has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed by the counter-petitioners. I therefore allow the petition and order the counter-petitioners to pay the petitioner's costs.