But the High Court was of the view that the period of limitation was number the one which was prescribed in the Limitation Act but the one which was laid down in the Appendix to The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 which was two years from 1 7 1952 which was the date of vesting under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act Act No.
It is from this Order that the present appeal has been filed by special leave.
The finding on the second issue was Chandrika Misir, at the time of filing the suit.
The finding on the first issue was that the defendant took actual possession of the plots in 1951 52.
Jagdamba died in 1948.
1 Chandrika Misir was a minor when Jagdamba died in 1948 and that he attained majority in the year 1955 and number before that.
They alleged that the respondent was interfering with their possession and hence they prayed for a permanent injunction.
The finding on the second issue was that plaintiff No.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated January 31.,
After the death of Markandey.
The suitwas filed on 5 9 1955.
Accordingly, possession was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PALEKAR.
The only point that the High Court had to decide was whether the suit which had been filed on 5 9 1955 i.e. the year in which the plaintiff number 1 had attained majority was in time, In an ordinary suit filed in a Civil Court for possession on the ground of dispossession the question of limitation, on the above facts, would have hardly arisen.
Several pleas were taken on behalf of the defendant one of them being a plea of limitation.
1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No.
When the case again came before the learned Chief Justice for the disposal of the appeal, these findings were accepted as they were findings of fact.
Jagdamba bad died in 1948 and plaintiff number 1 the next reversioner came of age in 1955.
In the alternative, they also asked for the relief of possession.
Yogeshwar Prasad and M. Veerappa, for the appellants.
The companyrts were unanimously of the opinion that the plaintiffs, being the next heirs, had sufficient title to the property while the defendant had numbere whatsoever.
In second appeal the High Court found that the question of limitation companyld number be properly determined unless there was a specific finding on two issues one relating to the companymencement of the possession of the plots in 1951 52.
1 of 1951 .
2128 of 1963.
The plaintiffs as the next reversioners claimed title, to the property.
Uma Mehta, S. K. Bagga and S. Bagga, for the respondent.
2032 of 1968.
The High Court re manded these two issues to the First Appellate Court for a finding.
The period of limitation would be 12 years and the suit would be obviously in time.
2128 of 1963.
J. This is an appeal by special leave against the Judgment and decree of the Allababad High Court in Second Appeal No.
The plaintiffs brought the suit against one Bhaiya Lal, the present respondent, in respect of certain Bhumidari plots The plots had been purchased in the name of one Markandey the uncle of the plaintiffs.
who died without issue, the plots were recorded in the name of his widow Jagdamba.
