- (1.) THIS is the plaintiff's appeal. The trial Court decreed the suit but the lower appellate Court dismissed it on. the ground of limitation.
(2.) THE brief facts are these: The plaintiff was appointed a Malguzar or Padhar of the Village Adhyali in the district of Almora in 1960. Formerly one Bal Mukund Sah was the Malguzar of the said village and he died in 1954. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the possession of the land in dis pute on the ground that the said land was Padhanchari land attached to the office of Malguzar. Formerly, the land was held by Bal Mukund as the Malguzar and subsequ ently, the plaintiff on his appointment to the said office became entitled to the same. The defendants-respondents were alleged to have been inducted into possession by Bal Mukund and to have been in permissive possession from the latter. With his appointment as the Malguzar in 1960, the plaintiff claimed to have become entitled to the possession of the land in dispute but as the defendants denied to part with possession, therefore, they were liable to be dispossessed and were also liable to pay damages for illegal occupation. The defendants contested the suit. They claimed that through their predecessors they held the land for the last 80 years be fore the institution of the suit. It was denied that they held permissive possession from the previous Malguzar Bal Mukund. The possession was claimed to be hostile and the defendants claimed to be his seders of the land in suit. The suit was alleged to be time-barred.
(3.) THE I Court decreed the suit on the basis of the following findings :- (1) The plaintiff was entitled to (he pos session of the land in dispute by virtue of his appointment as the Malpuzar. In other words, the land was in the nature of service tenure. (2) The defendants did not have permis sive possession of the land from Bal Mukund but held the same adversely since 1947-48. (3) The defendants' to have been in possession of the land for 80 years prior to the suit was incorrect. (4) The plaintiff or the previous Malau-znr. Bal Mukund. did not have possession within 12 years of the date of the suit. How ever, the said fact did not matter as the land belonged to the State. (5) The defendants did not hold the tend as his seders. As stated above, it was Mal-guzari land, that is. land to which the Mal guzar was entitled by virtue of his office. (6) The defendants could acquire title by adverse possession only if their adverse pos session lasted for at least 60 years as the land was owned by the State and the plain tiff was a rent-free tenant of the name. The did not hold any proprietary title in the same. The lower appellate Court the aforesaid findings except on the question of limitation. According to the said Court. the suit was time-barred under Article 1"2 of the old Indian Limitation Art. The 60 years adverse possession against the State was not complete, hence the State could evict the defendants but the plaintiff could not evict them as the rule of 12 years' 'imitation was applicable to his suit. It was observed. "This suit, therefore, is clearly a suit by a person entitled to possession against a trespasser who entered into possession after forcibly dispossession the predecessor-in-in-tersest of the plaintiff." The suit was, therefore, dismissed as time-barred by the said Court.;