Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE plots in dispute were Khudkast holding of Maniya Singh He died on 16-6-1948 leaving two sons, Surendra Singh and Virendra Singh. Surendra Singh filed a suit for ejectment of the respondents Nos. 4 anal 5 from the plots in dispute in the year 1965. It appears that in the same year consolidation proceedings commenced in the village, with the result that the suit stood abated.
(2.) IN consolidation proceedings respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed an objection claiming themselves to be sirdars of the plots in dispute by virtue of their uninterrupted long possession. Both the petitioners, namely, Surendra Singh and Virendra Singh contested the objection. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that at the time of death of Maniya Singh his sons were minors. Suremdra Singh became major some time in the year 1955, while Virendra Singh became major in the year 1964. Since Surendra Singh could have filed the suit for ejectment of the respondents within three years of his attaining majority, the suit filed by him in the year 1965 was barred by limitation. The respondents were in continuous possession of the plots in dispute for a long time; they became sirdars thereof. He directed that their names be recorded as such on the plots in dispute.
(3.) THE original tenure-holders have fled this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the hearing of the writ petition, it was argued that one co-sharer cannot give a valid discharge without the concurrence of the other co-sharer, under Section 7 of the Limitation Act, hence the suit was not barred by time. The learned single Judge felt that the question of law raised in the writ petition was of general importance. He, accordingly, referred the case to a Division Bench. That is how the matter has come before us.;