V.K.MEHROTRA, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiffs who had succeeded in the trial court. The suit related to three plots, namely, plot nos. 51, 139 and 202 situate in village Reoti, Pargana Kharid, District Ballia. The lower appellate court dismissed the suit as regards plot no. 51 but upheld the decree of the trial court in respect of the remaining two plots. The defen­dants to the suit have filed a cross-objection in this court in respect of those plots.
(2.) THE plaintiffs' case was that there were proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C., regarding the aforesaid plots which were decided on May 2, 1949 by the Magistrate by his order, which is ext. A-12 on the record of the suit. Bina Lal, brother of the plaintiffs, who is defendant no. 13 in the suit giving rise to the present appeal, was alone a party to the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. The contesting defendants were also party thereto. The learned Magistrate by his order dated May 2, 1949 (Ext. A-12) found Bina Lal to be in possession over plot nos. 139 and 202. As far as plot no. 51 is concerned, the learned Magistrate found the present defendant-respondents to be in possession and directed the release of the said plot in their favour. The plaintiff-appellants then instituted the suit giving rise to the present appeal being suit no. 750 of 1954 for a declaration that they were bhumidhars in possession of the three plots in dispute comprising in the holding enumerated in list 1 to the plaint. In the alternative, they also sought a relief for being put into possession of the plots in case it was found that they were not in pos­session. Amongst others, the defence taken by the defendant-respondents was that the suit for possession regarding plot no. 51 was barred by limitation. This defence was founded upon the plea that, inasmuch as Bina Lal, defen­dant no. 13, who is admittedly the brother of the two plaintiff-appellants, was a party to the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C., the plaintiffs would be bound by the result of these proceedings and would, in any case, be deemed to have knowledge of those proceedings so that the suit ought to have been filed within a period of three years from the date of the order under Section 145, Cr. P. C. (May 2, 1949) as provided by Art. 47 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. Since the suit was filed in the year 1954, the plaintiffs could not seek relief for possession.
(3.) THE trial court negatived the plea of limitation raised before it relying upon the decisions in the cases of Ram Lal v. Thakur Din and others (AIR 1921 Oudh 191) and Sankatha Sukul v. Smt. Govindi Devi (AIR 1950 Alld. 693). It took the view that the findings recorded under Section 145 proceedings could only bind either the parties to the, proceedings or those claiming under such party. It, therefore, concluded that, inasmuch as, the two plaintiffs were neither party to the proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C., nor were they claiming through Bina Lal, their brother, a party to those proceedings, the suit brought by them In the year 1954 could not be held to be barred by limitation under Art. 47 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.;