Mudholkar, J. - (1.) The short point which falls to be considered in this appeal by special leave from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab dismissing the appellant's appeal in limine is whether the suit for possession instituted by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is within time. There are ten respondents to the appeal out of whom only two, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Amardas and respondent No. 11 Union of India are represented. While the appeal is contested by the first respondent it is supported by the Union of India. The facts which are not disputed before us are briefly these:
(2.) The appellant has a share of 122 1/2 / 143 1/2 in the land in suit. The occupancy tenant of this land is Akhara Nirbansar of Sultanwind Gate, Amritsar. The second respondent Ram Saran Das was Mahant of this Akhara till the year 1950 when he was removed by virtue of an order made by a civil Court in a suit under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure confirmed in appeal on September 11, 1950. On December 29, 1953 respondent No. 1 was appointed as Mahant in place of respondent No. 2.
(3.) On September 15, 1939 the appellant instituted a suit in a revenue court under Ss. 38 and 39 of the Punjab Tenancy Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) for possession of 141 kanals 8 marlas of land on the ground that he had granted a sub-lease thereof for the manufacture of bricks to someone by utilising earth dug up from that land. This, according to the appellant, was in contravention of the provisions of S. 39 of the Act and entitled him to eject respondent No. 2. The Revenue Court held that out of the land sub-leased by respondent No. 2 only a certain portion was dug up by the sub-lessee and, therefore, the ejectment of the second respondent was confined to that area of land which had been dug up. The date of the ejectment decree was June 3, 1940. The second respondent preferred an appeal before the Collector from that decree which was dismissed on October 19, 1940. Shortly thereafter the appellant obtained possession of the land from which the second respondent was ordered to be ejected. The lessee of the second respondent however, continued to dig up the rest of the land and, therefore, the appellant instituted a second suit for the ejectment of the second respondent therefrom. The Assistant Collector who tried the suit granted a decree to the appellant in respect of the entire land which was left with the second respondent after he was dispossessed from apart of the land leased to him under the earlier decree. In appeal, however, the Collector modified the order of ejectment by leaving out of the land 29 kanals and 14 marlas. This order was made on May 31, 1943. Shortly thereafter the appellant obtained possession of the land with respect to which the Collector had confirmed the order of ejectment in the appeal.;