Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) This Letter Patent appeal at the instance of the Appellant-Defendant arises out of a suit for possession of the disputed property filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent after eviction of the principal Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The case of the Plaintiff is as follows: The disputed properties constitute absolute debotter of the Plaintiff deity and appertain to Taided No. 2830 of 1209 B.S. of Midnapore Collectorate. The Plaintiff's case is that at the time of the Taided, Bejoyram and Ramsunder Chakravarty were the shebaits of the Plaintiff deity. Bejoyram's great-grandson was Ramgopal whose only son is the Plaintiff. Balaram's great-grandson was Jyotish whose only heir was his sister's son Kalobaran, the deceased husband of the Defendant No. 4. The shebaiti interest of Ramsundcr devolved on his grandsons Abinash and Dinanath. Abinash was succeeded by his widow Bidhumukhi and Dinanath by his two sisters sons Upendra Roy and Sripati Chakravarty. It is alleged that Bidhumukhi, Upendra and Sripati transferred their 1/3rd shebaiti right along with the debottar properties in their possession to the Plaintiff's father Ramgopal by three registered documents. Hence, the Plaintiff's father used to perform the pala of shebapuja of the deity for 8 months in respect of his 23rd shebaiti right and held debottar properties measuring 2.18 acre recorded in khatian No. 302 of mouza Pirchak, Jyotish performed the pala for 4 months out of the usufruct of the debottar properties measuring 1.29 acre including the disputed properties in his possession and recorded in khatian of 304 of the mouza. The properties of these two khatians are the same as the 7-1/2 bigha lands of mouza Brahmapur as acted in the Taided and it is alleged that they are absolute debottar properties of Plaintiff-deity. Jyotish died in 1327 B.S. and his heir Kalobaran sold the disputed property as his personal properties to one Surendra Roy by a kobala dated February 4, 1921. The case of the Plaintiff is that this transfer is fraudulent, illegal and void. The father of the Plaintiff being the other shebait brought a T.S. No. 2 of 1930 in this Court against Jamini, Bholanath and Madanmohan as the Defendants and Kalobaran as the pro Defendant in order to avoid the alienation and remove Kalobaran from shebaitship. But the Plaintiff's father was gained over with money and was made to compromise the suit admitting that the disputed properties were personal properties of Jyotish. Kalobaran died in Jaistha 1361 B.S. and after the death of Kalobaran, the Plaintiff brought the present suit for recovery of the properties.
(2.) For the purpose of consideration of this case, the point raised is not necessary for us to advert other facts. The question is one for limitation and therefore, the only point for consideration in this case is whether the transfer of the debottar properties was made on February 4, 1921 and Kalobaran died in 1361 B.S. and the suit was brought on December 8, 1954. In the Court below it has been held that the disputed properties are absolute debottar properties. It was further held that Kalobaran sold the properties on February 4, 1921 as if it was his personal properties and it was further found that Kalobaran died in 1361 B.S. (November 1954). The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the deity having been allowed the Defendant preferred the second appeal in this Court. The second appeal having been dismissed the Defendant on a leave granted by the Hon'ble Single Judge preferred this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
(3.) The only point argued by Mr. Ghose on behalf of the Appellant before us is regarding the starting point of the limitation and whether Article 144 of the Limitation Act or Articles 134 A, B and C will apply. It must be stated that by amendment in 1929 of the Limitation Act, Articles 134A, 134B and 134C were added. Article 134A, B and C of the Limitation Act run as follows: JUDGEMENT_40_LAWS(CAL)6_1977_1.html The learned Single Judge held that the suit is not barred by limitation as the suit is governed by Article 134B of the Limitation Act and the starting point of the limitation would run from the date of death of Kalobaran, that is, 1954 and not from the date of the transfer, that is February 4, 1921.;