D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Regular Second Appeal No. 657 of 1.057 and Regular Second Appeal No. 934 of 1957. They are cross -appeals and arise out of the same judgment.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows: Tehal Singh Plaintiff exchanged land measuring 20 Bighas 16 Biswas with the Defendants Mehar Singh and others, Defendants 1 to 8, and in lieu thereof got 18 Bighas and 4 Biswas. This happened prior to the year 1031. However, the revenue authorities refused to sanction the mutation of exchange, with the result that the parties to the exchange were recorded owners of their respective lands but In fact, the possession had passed over to the exchanges in either case. The exchanges were recorded as tenants of the land, of which, In fact, they should have been recorded as the owners. It is common ground that Defendants 1 to 8 obtained more land than they were entitled to under the exchange, that is, an area covering 3 Bighas and 9 Biswas (Sic). They continued to remain in possession of the same for a period of more than 12 years. The land which had been obtained in exchange by the Plaintiff was acquired by the Government and compensation thereof paid to the Defendants, because they were recorded in the revenue papers as the owners. This led to a suit by the Plaintiff for possession of 24 Bighas 5 Biswas of land which he had taken from the Defendants in exchange and which the Defendants had parted in favour of the Plaintiff. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court as barred by the lime. Against this decision an appeal was taken by the Plaintiff and at the stage of appeal the parties agreed that the Plaintiff be permitted to withdraw the suit with the liberty to bring a fresh suit for the recovery of the compensation amount that the Defendants had received on the acquisition of the land and for possession oft, 3 Bighas and 9 Biswas of land which was in excess and it was further staled that it will be open to Defendants to raise such pleas as they are advised in case a fresh suit is flied. The present suit was accordingly filed on the 15th of February, 1950 and was for the recovery of Rs. 1,812/4/ - on account of compensation paid, by the Government and for possession of 3 Bighas 9 Biswas the excess land taken possession of by the Defendants as already referred to above. The Defendants raised the pleas of limitation and adverse possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit with regard to compensation and decreed the suit with regard to the excess area Against this decision, both the parties appealed. The Plaintiff appealed against the decision with regard to the compensation and the Defendants appealed with regard to the decision against the excess urea measuring 3 Bighas 9 Biswas the lower appellate Court allowed both these appeals, with the result that the Plaintiffs' suit was decreed with regard to the compensation and the Defendant's appeal was allowed with regard to land measuring 3 Bighas 9 Biswas, the excess area. It is against this decision that the present appeals have been preferred by both the parties. Taking up the Defendant's appeal first, the only question raised is that (lie correct article to be applied is Article 17 and not 62 as was clone by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court has applied Article 62 Articles 17 and 18 are in these terms: Description of Period of Time from which suit Limitation period begins to run. * * * 17. Against Government One year The date of deter - for compensation for mining the am - land acquired for ount of the com - public purposes pensation. * * * 62. For money payable Three When the money by the Defendant years is received. to the Plaintiff for money received by the Defendant for the Plaintiff's use.
(3.) IT will be apparent from plain reading of these articles that the lower Appellate Court was right in applying Article 62. Indian Limitation Act, 1908.;