- (1.) THIS is the defendants appellants' second appeal against the concurrent decree passed by the trial and the first appellate courts in suit for profits under Sec. 164 of the Jaipur State Grants Land Tenures Act in respect of half share of the muafi land covered by khasra Nos. 1346, 1347 and 1348.
(2.) WE have perused the record of the case and heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The decree of the lower-courts is challenged mainly on two grounds, first, that the claim for Svt. 1999 was time barred and secondly, that both the courts had erred in holding that the plaintiff had half share in the muafi land. Both these contentions are obviously without any substance. It is admitted by the plaintiff himself that after the death of Keshav Dutta on 21-4-42 Matmi of his land in equal shares was sanctioned on 19-6-45. Evidently therefore the right to claim half the share of the profits of the land for Svt. 1999 accrued to the plaintiff on 19-6-45 i. e. the date on which he was duly recognised as a legal representative of the deceased muafidar and the period of limitation commenced to run from that date. The first appellate court rightly observed that this claim was covered by Sec. 17 of the Limitation Act, according to which where a person who would,if he were living, have a right to institute a suit or make an application, dies before the right accrues, the period of limitation shall be computed from the time when there is a legal representative of the deceased capable of instituting such a suit or making an application. We are, therefore, in agreement with the finding of the Additional Commissioner and rule out this contention. As regards the other contention viz. that the plaintiff was not a co-sharer of half in the maufi land in dispute it is an admitted fact that in the past there had been litigation between the parties on this point and a decree for half the share had been given by the revenue courts in favour of the respondents. It was held by the Revenue Minister Jaipur by his order dated 19-12-41 that the parties held half the land each muafidars. This view was also supported by the Board of Revenue in its order dated 16-5-46. Further, in the orders of attachment during Matmi proceedings only half the share of Kishandas was attached as per order of the Nazim dated 22-7-43 and the entries in mutation register also confirm this view. The plaintiff respondent has been therefore rightly held to be a co-sharer of half in the muafi land. The result is that the decree passed by the lower courts is upheld and the appeal is hereby dismissed. .;