- (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by the defendant against whom the respondents' (Shri Banshilal and Satya Narain) suit for recovery of possession over the land in dispute was decreed by the trial court, the additional Commissioner, Udaipur confirming the same in first appeal.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing of the parties and have gone through the record as well. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant before us is that the suit was instituted beyond the prescribed period of limitation and hence it should have been dismissed by the lower courts. The facts of the case are that Banshilal and Satya Narain instituted a suit in the court of the S. D. O. Vallabhnagar (Udaipur District) on 29. 10. 53 against Jaswant Singh, Shambhu Singh and Gamer Singh with the allegations that he had been cultivating the land as a tenant since Svt. 1990, that he continued in possession till Svt. 2005 when the defendants started a criminal prosecution against him and when he was under custody took forcible possession over his land in Asadh Svt. 2005. Both the lower courts have found it as a fact that the plaintiff was in possession in Svt. 2005 and that he was dispossessed wrongfully in the month of Asadh of that year. According to the Gregorian calendar, this would be July, 1948. The suit, as pointed out above, was instituted on 29. 10. 53, i. e. more than 5 years after the accrual of the cause of action. The Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act 1951, came into force on 31. 1. 51. The appellant's contention is that the suit is governed by Item 12, Group B, Schedule 1 of the Act, whereas according to the respondents it falls under item 10 of the said schedule. Item 10 provides for a suit for the ejectment of a trespasser taking possession of the land without lawful authority. Item 12 relates to a suit for lawful possession by a person who has been wrongfully ejected or for compensation or for both. The scope of these provisions was examined by the Board in Bhur Singh vs. Vanka (1954 RLW Revenue Supplement 17 ). It was held therein that item 10 was intended to provide relief to a land-holder against a trespasser and item 12 deals with cases where relief is sought by a tenant against a trespasser. A reference may also be made in this connection to a decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in A. I. R. 1955 N. U. C. 1252. It was observed therein that item 12 contemplates a suit by a person who has some title as a tenant and has been ejected otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the revenue law. As for item 10 it was observed that it related to a suit which is to be based on title and is to be distinguished from a suit which is purely under sec. 9 of the Specific Relief Act. Applying this test in the present case, it will be found that it is to be governed by item 12 and not by item 10, Schedule B, Group I of the Act. It is clearly a suit by a tenant against a trespasser. This item (12) provides a period of three years commencing from the time when the wrongful dispossession has taken place. This brings us to the next question as to whether the suit was within limitation or not on the date of its institution. It has been admitted, by the appellant's counsel that at the time when the cause of action arose a 12 years limitation was provided for the suit. On the enforcement of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act on 31-1. 51, this period was reduced to 3 years by item 12, Group B, Schedule I of the Act Sec. 9 of the Act provides that where the period prescribed by the Schedules of this Act is shorter than the period prescribed by any law in force before the commencement of this Act then the suit may be instituted within six months next after the commencement of this Act or within the period of limitation prescribed by the aforesaid law whichever period expires first. The implications of this proviso were examined at length by the Rajasthan High Court in Bansilal Sukhlal vs. Kurban Hussain (1954 RLW 51 ). It was observed therein that when a fresh limitation is pre-scribed by a new enactment, three possibilities would arise in such circumstances, namely - " (1) the reduced period of limitation under the Ordinance might have expired before it came into force. (2) the period of limitation under the old law might not have expired when the Ordinance came into force, but was going to expire in less than six months after coming into force of the former Rajasthan Ordinance. ° (3) the reduced period of limitation had not expired before the coming into force of the Ordinance, and was going to expire more than six months after coming into force of that Ordinance. " In the present case the reduced period of limitation had not expired when the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act came into force but was going to expire within six months of the enforcement of the Act. As observed by the Rajasthan High Court, sec. 5 was enacted in order mainly to save those cases where the reduced period of limitation under the fresh enactment had expired before it came into force and six months' grace was allowed in such cases. Where the period under the old law had not expired and it was 1 than six months from the date of the fresh enactment, the Legislature thought it fit not to any grace at all. "it could not have been the intention of the Legislature where the period limitation was being reduced, say, as in this case from 8 years to 3 years, and when the reduced period was to run for much longer period than six months, to reduce it still further and to enact that in such a case also the maximum period would be six months. " In the present the cause of action arose, on 21. 7. 48, that being the last day of the month of Asadh Smt. 2005. The reduced period of limitation, i. e. 3 years would therefore expire on 20th July, 1951, i. e. within six months after the commencement of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act. According to the provisions contained in sec. 9 of the Act the suit should therefore have been brought till 20th July, 1951. The suit was instituted on 29. 10. 53 It is clearly barred by limitation. In view of this decision it is unnecessary to go into other aspects of the case. We would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decrees of the lower courts and direct that the suit instituted by Banshilal and Satya Narain shall stand dismissed The parties shall bear their own costs .;