LexZAFAR KHAN AND ORS. versus BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,
.,I
287
A
ZAFAR KHAN AND ORS.
v.
BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. & ORS.
July 31, 1984
[D.A. DESAI AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.J
Limitation Act, 1963-Section 14 (1)-Inrerpretation of-For claiming
benefit under s. 14 (!) three conditions must be satisfied. Expression 'other
cause of a like nature' mu1t be read ejusdem g1neris with expr•ssion 'defect of
jurisdiction'.
Code of Civil Procedures. 144-R~quir~ments of.
U.P. \Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-s. 49-lnterpretation of.
U.P. Zanlindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950-Section20 (b)
B
c
read with Explanation I-Int~rpretation of.
D
The appellants, in execution of a decree passed in a suit flied by them
under s. 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, on December 2, 1948 took
back possession of the land in dispute from the respondent Nos. 4 and ·s
(respondents for short). On the adv~nt of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 ('19.50 ACt' for short) the respondents moved an
application under s. 232 of the 19SO Act to regain possession of t~e land on
the ground that they hand acquired the status of adhivasis udder that Act.
The Assistant Colle.ctor dismissed the application. The respondents appealed
to the Additional Cbmmissioner. The appellants contended that since the
village in which 'the land in dispute was situated was put into consolidation
under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 ('1953 Act' for short),
the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to heat the 9ppeal. The
appellants also submitted that a statement under s. 8 and 8A of the 1953 Act
was published in which they were shown as bhumidars of the land in
qllestion and the respondents had not objected to the entries. The Addi-
tional Con1misinner, by his order dated June 15, 1956, aliowed the appeal.
Pursuant to that order the entries in the said statement were corrected and
the respondents acquired possession of the land. The Boar.cl of Revenue,
before whom the Additional Com missioner's order was challenged, held that
the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal on
merits.
On September 11, 1958 the appellants moved an application under
s. 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Sub Divisional Officer
praying for restitution of possession. This application and the subsequent
appeals wrre rejected by the authorities. Dismissing a writ petition filed by
the appellants the High Court held that the proceedings under s. 144 of the
Code of Civil Procedure coUld not succeed, but since the decision recorded
b)' the anthorities und>!r the 1953 Act had become final, it was always open
E
I'
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ff
288
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] I s.c.R.
to the petitioners to move the first appellate court to decide the appeal in
terms of the decision of the consolidation authorities.
Thereupon, in August 1966, the appe11an1s filed a suit under ss. 209
and 229 (b} of the 1950 Act against the respondents for a decree for posses-
sion on the ground that they were bhumidhars of the land in question under
the 1950 Act. The Assistant Collector decreed the suit. The Additional
Comrnissiner allo\\'ed the appeal filed by the respondents. The Board of
Revenue dismissed the appe1Iants' second appeal-
The appellants filed a writ
petition in the High Court. A single Judge of the High Court dismissed the
writ petition. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the special
appeal filed by the appellants. Hence this appeal.
The respondents contended: (i) that the suit was barred by limitation
and the appelJants were not entitled to the benefit ofs. 14 (1) of the Limita-
tion Act, 1963; and (ii) that the suit was barred bys. 49 of the !9S3 Act.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: l. The party seeking benefit of s. 14 (I) of the.Limitation
.Act, 1963 must satisfy the three conditions laid d0wn in the section, namely,
(i) that the party as the plan tiff was prosecuting another civil proceeding
with due diligence; (ii) that the earlier proceeding and the later proq_eeding
relate to the same matter in issue; and (iii) that the form~r proceeding was
being prosecuted in good faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction
or other c::i.use of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. [297G-H]
2. The expression •other cause of a like nature' will have to be read
ejusdem generis with the expression •defect .of jurisdiction'. So construed
the expression •other cause of a like nature' must be so interpreExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.