(1.) This appeal is by the plain, tiffs. The suit was instituted for the assessment of fair and equitable rent and for the recovery of compensation for the use and occupation of the land for a period of three years and nine months. The learned Subordinate Judge in appeal has fixed a rate of Rs. 2-4-0 per acre as fair and equitable. The appellants are dissatisfied with this and they want the rate fixed by the first Court to be restored. There is no ground whatsoever for interference with this finding in second appeal.
(2.) The other question raised is one of limitation. As the sum at stake is only eight annas it was argued chiefly as a matter of interest. The contention of the appellants is that Art. 120, Limitation Act, applies to the claim. I may note that this point was not taken at the trial and it appears to have been raised by the learned Judge in appeal himself.
(3.) On behalf of the respondents Mr. N.C. Das relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in Bisheshar Singh V/s. Paton Mahton (1930) 17 A.I.R. Pat. 485. Inasmuch as Art. 120 is a residuary Art. and inasmuch as the learned Judges did not say what Art. in their opinion applies, the point has not really been decided. They based their decision upon an earlier decision which I have examined : that is the case in Jai Narain V/s. Kuleswar Singh (1929) 16 A.I.R. Pat. 233. There again, there is no decision on the point and it appears that the claim was limited to three years on an admission made by the learned advocate appearing in the case. On behalf of the appellants reliance was placed upon a decision of this Court in Robert Watson and Co. Ltd. V/s. Ram Chund Dutt (1896) 23 Cal. 799. Mr. N.C. Das distinguished that case on the ground that it is concerned with a dispute between joint tenants. He contended that Art. 115 is applicable to a case such as the present. That Article is in these terms: For compensation for the breach of any contract express or implied not in writing registered and not herein specially provided for.