T.S. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the Plaintiffs arises out of their suit against the State of U.P. and Gram Sabha for a declaration that the land in dispute is not the land of public utility or a graveyard or grazing land and that the plaintiff's are the Sirdars of the said land on the basis of a Patta. The Plaintiffs also claimed possession of the land. They further prayed that the proceedings taken under Section 212 -A of the UP ZA & LR Act, hereinafter called the Act, were illegal and inoperative.
(2.) THE Plaintiffs alleged that they had acquired the said land on the basis of a Patta dated 30 -6 -1951 executed by Badri Prasad Singh. The Gram Sabha, however, initiated proceedings under Section 212 -A of the Act against the Plaintiffs for their eviction asserting that the said land was a graveyard, grazing land and land of public utility. The Gram Sabha succeeded in those proceedings and the Plaintiffs were ejected from the land in dispute on 14 -12 -1962. The Plaintiffs had firstly filed a suit for possession in the Court of Judicial Officer Sadar, Sultanpur on 16 -4 -1963. The plaint was, however, returned to them on 30 -4 -1964 for prosecution before the Civil Court. The Plaintiffs, therefore, claimed the benefit of Sections 5 and 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. The suit was resisted by the Defendants on a variety of grounds pleading, inter -alia, that the same was not maintainable in the Civil Court. An issue was accordingly struck on that plea and it was tried as a preliminary issue. The learned Munsif held that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court and directed that the plaint be returned to the Plaintiffs for presentation before the proper court. On appeal by the Plaintiffs against that decision the learned District Judge, Sultanpur set aside the order of the trial court holding that the suit was cognizable by the Civil Court. He, therefore, directed that the suit be tried on merits by the Munsif. The learned Munsif then framed as many as six issues. Issue No. 5 was whether the suit was within time? This issue was decided in favour of the Plaintiffs. The learned Munsif also decided other issues in favour of the Plaintiffs and decreed the suit.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by that decision the Defendants preferred an appeal. The appellate court below accepted the contention that the suit was barred by time and reversing the finding recorded by the trial court in that behalf held that the suit was barred by time, and dismissed the same. The Plaintiffs have now come up to this Court in second appeal.;