CHANDRIKA MISIR & ANR. versus BHAIYA LAL

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 290 · Decided: 31-07-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

290 
CHANDRIKA MISIR & ANR. 
v. 
BHAIYA LAL 
luly 31, 1973 
LD. G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIR!SWAM!, JJ.J 
U.P. Zamirnlari Abolition arnl Larnl Reforms Act, 1951 and Rules-Sectio11s 
209 and 331-Whether Cii•il Court had iurisdiction to entertain the suit-Limi-
tation. 
Appellants brought this suit against the present respondent for possession of 
certain Bhumidhari plots. The plots had been purchased in the name of the 
appellant's uncle. 
After the death of the uncle who died issueless, the plots were 
recorded in the name of his widow. The widow died in 1948. The appellants 
as the next reversioners claimed-title to tl1e plots. 
The respondent contended that 
the suit was barred by limitation. 
The couits below were unanimously of the opinion that the plaintiffs had 
title to the property and the defenElant had none. The leam:-d Munsiff h'Jwever 
dismissed the suits as being barred by limitation. In appeal, the learned Addi-
tional Civil Judge reversed the finding and decreed the suit. 
In second appeal 
the High Court was of the view that the period, Of limitation was 
not the 
one 
which was prescribed under the Limitation Act~ but the one which was provided 
in· Appendix 2 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and l,and Reforms Ru1es, 1952, 
which was 2 vears from 1-7-1952. Since the suit -was filed on 5-9-1955, it was 
barred by limitation. 
Dismissing the appea1, 
HELD: (i) Sections 209 and 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land 
Reforms Act 1951, when. read together,· showed that a suit, like the present one, 
had to be fiJed in a Special Court created under the Act within a period of limita-
tion specially prescribed under the Rules made under the Act, and the jurisdic-
tion of the ordinary Civil Courts to entertain the suit was absolutely barred. 
1292CJ 
Since the Civil Court which entertained the suit suffered from an 
inherent 
lack of jurisdiction because of special provisions of the U.P. 1 Zamindari Abo1i· 
!Ion and Land Reforms Act 1951, the present appeal filed by the appellant• had 
to be dismissed. [2938) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :-Civil Appeal No. 2032 of 
1968. 
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated Janu-
ary 31, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 
2128 of 1963. 
Yogeshwar Prasad and M. Veerappa, for the appellants. 
Uma Mehta, S. K. Bagga and S. Bagga; for the respondent. 
The Judgment <:>f the Court was delivered by 
c 
I) 
E 
F 
G 
PALEKAR. J .-This is an appeal by special leave against the 
Judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court in Second Apoeal 
No. 2128 of 1963. 
The plaintiffs brought the suit a~ainst one Bhaiya 
Lal, the present respondent, in respect of certain Bhumidari plots. 
The plots had been purchased in the name of one Markandey-the 
H 
uncle of the plaintiffs. 
After the death of Markandey. who died with-
out issue, the plots were recorded in the name of his widow Jagdamba. 
Jagdamba died in 1948. The plaintiffs as the next reversioners claimed 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
CHANDRIKA I', DHAI\'A LAL (Palekar, J.) 
291 
title to the property. 
They alleged that the respondent was interfer-
ing with their p0ssession and hence they prayed for a permment in· 
junction. 
In the alternative, they also asked for the relief of pos-
session. The suit was filed on 5-9-1955. 
Several pleas were taken on behalf of the defendant one of th~m 
being a plea of limitation. The courts were unanimously of the 
opinion that the plaintiffs, being the next heirs, had sufficient title to 
the property while the defendant had none whatsoever. 
The learned 
Munsif in whose court the suit was filed however, held that the suit 
was barred by limitation. 
In appeal the learned Additional Civil Judge, 
Varanasi, held that the plaintiffs claim was not barred by limitation. 
Accordingly, possession was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. 
Jn second appeal the High Court found that the question of limit-
ation could not be properly determined unless there was a specific 
finding on two issues one relating to the commencement of the pos-
session of the plots in 1951-52. The finding on the second issue was 
Chandrika Misir, at the time of filing the suit. 
The High Court re· 
manded these two issues to the First Appellate Court for a finding. 
The finding on the first issue was that the defendant took actual pos-
session of the plots in 1951-52. The finding on the second issue was 
that plaintiff No. 1 Chandrika Misir was a minor when Jagdamba 
died in 1948 and that he attai

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.