MATADIN S/O. SUKHU CASTE KURMI, R/O. VILLAGE BIRPUR, PARGANA ARAIL, DIST. ALLAHABAD Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Matadin S/O. Sukhu Caste Kurmi, R/O. Village Birpur, Pargana Arail, Dist. Allahabad
Board Of Revenue U.P. Allahabad And Others
Referred Judgements :-
RAM LAL SINGH V. MUEZAM ALI
INDRAJIT V. BHIKARI LAL
B V PATANKAR VS. C G SASTRY
Click here to view full judgement.
W.Broome, J. -
(1.)This writ petition is directed against an order passed by a first class Assistant Collector (Judicial Officer of Handia, Allahabad) on Dec. 7, 1955, dismissing an objection under Sec. 47 C.P.C. relating to an execution matter, as well as the subsequent decisions of the Additional Commissioner of Allahabad of the Board of Revenue, dated April 6, 1957, and Oct. 27, 1958 respectively, refusing to interfere with the Assistant Collector's order by way of appeal and revision.
(2.)In the year 1952 opposite parties 4 to 7 filed a suit against the petitioner Mata Din under Sec. 160 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, asking for his ejectment from certain plots and claiming damages. This suit was decreed on Aug. 11, 1953. The decree was put into execution on July 26, 1955, and the decree-holders obtained possession of the disputed plots on or about. Oct. 10, 1955. There upon the petitioner filed an objection under Sec. 47 C.P.C. before the execution court (the Judicial Officer of Handia), asking for restoration of possession on the ground that the decree had become time-barred by the time it was put into execution on July 26, 1955. This objection was dismissed on Dec. 7, 1955 by the first of the impugned orders, on the ground that the decree under Sec. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act was a money decree and consequently the period of limitation was three years under Serial 5 of Group F of the Fourth Schedule of the Act. This decision has been affirmed by the commissioner in appeal and by the Board of Revenue in revision, reliance being placed on an earlier decision of the Board reported in Indrajit Vs. Bhikari Lal, 1943 RD 335 .
(3.)The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned orders are clearly wrong because the period of limitation for executing the decree in the present case, in so far as it related to possession of the disputed land, was only one year by virtue of Serial No. 7 of Group F of the Fourth Schedule of the Act. The contesting respondents on the other hand maintain that the impugned decision were correct in calculating the limitation in accordance with Serial No. 5.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.