G.N.DAS., J. - (1.) THIS appeal is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent limited in the course of the trial to a claim for the year 1344 B. S. The facts are not in controversy and may be briefly stated as follows: The defendant held a putni taluk in respect of lands appertaining to touzi No. 523 under the plaintiffs. In the year 1914 the lands which are the subject -matter of this suit for rent accreted to the parent touzi No. 523 and were formed into a temporary settled estate bearing touzi No. 3653. In the record of rights finally published under part II chap. X, Bengal Tenancy Act a sum of Rs. 1028 -2 -0 was settled as the rent payable in respect of the accreted lands. Two suits for rent were instituted by the plaintiffs for recovery of rent for two successive periods, namely 1328 to 1331 B. S. and 1332 to 1335 B. S. These suits for rent were ultimately dismissed by this Court in second appeal on the ground that no additional rent was payable in respect of the lands in suit. The decision of this Court was pronounced on 29th July 1988 and is reported in Midnapore Zemindari Co. v. Chandra Singha : AIR1939Cal1 . Against this decision the plaintiffs took an appeal to the Privy Council. The appeal succeeded. The decision of the Judicial Committee was pronounced on 18th December 1941 and is reported in Chandra Singh v. Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd. 69 I. A. 61: (A. I. R. (29) 1912 P. C. 8). The effect of the decision of the Privy Council was that the defendant was held to be liable to pay rent to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 1028 -2 -0 per annum. Consequent on the decision of the Privy Council, on 22nd July 1942 corresponding to 5th Sraban 1349 B. S. the plaintiffs instituted the present suit for recovery of rent.
(2.) THE defence to the suit was one of limitation. This defence succeeded in the Courts below. On an appeal to this Court our learned brother Biswas J. was of the opinion that the claim was not barred by limitation. The appeal was accordingly allowed. In the present appeal by the defendant the only question which calls for our determination is a question of limitation. Under Section 53, Bengal Tenancy Act, (hereinafter called the Act) rent is payable subject to an agreement or established usage to the contrary, in four equal instalments falling due on the last day of each quarter of the agricultural year. Article 2 (b) part I, Schedule III prescribes the period of limitation for a suit for recovery of arrears of rent to be three years from ' the last day of the agricultural year in which the arrears fall due'. In other words, the claim for the period in suit, that is 1344 B. S. became barred on 1st Baisakh 1348 B. S. but as 1st Baisakh 1348 B. S. was a holiday, a suit for recovery of the arrears of rent for 1344 B. S. had to be instituted on 2nd Baisakh 1348 B. S. The claim was, therefore, prima facie barred under Article 2 (b) Part I, Schedule III of the Act. The suit was, therefore, prima facie liable to be dismissed under Section 184 of the Act.
(3.) THE defendant appellant contends that this is the legal position and bases his argument on the plain terms of Article 2 (b) part I, Schedule III. His contention is that the time having once begun to run it was not suspended by reason of the pendency of the appeal before the Privy Council.;