Malik, C.J. - (1.) This is a Plaintiffs' appeal which had been dismissed by a learned single Judge on the plea of limitation. The river Rapti separates Gonda and on the banks of the river there are numerous ghats from which ferries operate. On the Basti side of the river there is a ghat known as Betnar Ghat, the exclusive ferry rights to which were admittedly granted to Plaintiff No. 1, the Raja of Bansi by the Government. Just opposite Betnar Ghat on the Gonda side there is Materia Ghat which was declared by the Government as a public ferry several years ago. On the same side there is Jigna Ghat. From Betnar Ghat on the opposite side of the river a ferry was operated by Abdul Khalik as a Thekedar of Raja Bahadur Pashupati Pratap Singh for Bansi. In the year 1936 the District Board began to separate a ferry from Jigna Ghat to Betnar Ghat. The Plaintiffs claimed that this was an infringement of their right and a notice under Sec. 192 of the District Boards Act (Act X of 1922) was given and the suit out of which this appeal has arisen was filed on the 27th of October, 1942. Originally the Plaintiffs had claimed both damages and injunction, but the claim for damages was given up and their claim for injunction alone has survived. The Plaintiffs' right was denied on behalf of the District Board but after the decision of the lower appellate court learned Counsel has admitted that the finding of that court that Plaintiff No. 1 had an exclusive ferry right granted to him at Betnar Ghat by the British Government was a finding of fact. He has further admitted that the action of Defendant No. 1 in allowing other contractors to ply boats is an interference with the Plaintiff' rights. Learned Counsel also admits that this is a continuing breach. He has, however, relied on Sec. 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act (Act IX of 1908 and after its amendment by the Indian Limitation Act No. X of 1922) and has urged that Sec. 23 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to a suit of this nature for which a period of six months' limitation has been fixed under Sec. 192(3) of the District Boards Act:
(2.) Sec. 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act (Act IX of 1908, after its amendment by the Indian Limitation Act (Act X of 1922) reads as follows: Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefore by the first schedule, the provisions of Sec. 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefore in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law: (a) The provisions contained in Sec. 4, Sec. 9 to 18 and Sec. 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; and (b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply.
(3.) After its amendment, therefore, the Sec. makes it clear that Ss. other than Sec. 4, 9 to 18 and 22 of the Limitation Act do not apply where there is a special period of limitation fixed by a special or local law for any suit, appeal or application.;