BATESHWAR PROSAD Vs. SIR KAMESHWAR SINGH BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the Additional District Judge of Purnea, dated the 5th of March 1948.

(2.) The only question for consideration is whether the suit is governed by the special rule of limitation under Article 3, Schedule III of the Bihar Tenancy Act.

(3.) The facts giving rise to this question may be shortly stated as follows: The land in dispute originally belonged to one Ritoo Rao. The plaintiff is the purchaser of the suit land by a private treaty from the original tenants. Ignoring the sale, the landlord brought a suit for rent in the year 1931 against the original tenant and got an ex parte decree, and in execution of that decree he purchased the right, title and interest of his judgment-debtor in the holding of which he got delivery of possession through Court on the 14th of June 1938. Thereafter he settled the land with the defendants second party. The present suit was instituted on the 21st of December 1945, for recovery of possession on the ground that the Court sale was not binding on the plaintiff. It is contended before us that the suit is governed by the ordinary law of limitation, and not by the special rule of limitation, and in support of this contention reliance has been placed upon a Special Bench decision of this Court in 'Gajadhar v. Ram Charan', 9 Pat 788. In my opinion, the case is fully covered by the decision of the Special Bench and the appeal ought to be decreed.