Jai Kishen and Others Vs Ram Lal

Aikman, J.@mdashThe plaintiffs, who are appellants here, brought a suit for the removal of certain trees which had been planted by the defendant on the land which he held from the plaintiffs for cultivation. The suit was brought Upwards of two years after the trees were planted. The Lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, applying Article 32 of the second schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. In appeal it is contended that the suit is governed by Article 144 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act. That article has clearly no application to this suit, which is not a suit for possession. In the case of Gangadhar v. Zahurriya ILR All. 446, Article 32 was held to be applicable to a suit like the present. That was a ruling of Tyrrell and Mahmood, JJ., and that ruling was concurred in by Straight, J., in Musharaf Ali v. Iftkhar Husain ILR All. 634. The appeal therefore dannot be sustained. I may add that, in my opinion, the cognizance of the suit by the Civil Court was barred by the provisions of Section 93 of Act No. XII of 1881, and in this opinion I am fortified by the decision in Deodat Tiwari v. Gopi Misr Weekly Notes 1882 p. 102. I dismiss this appeal, but without costs, as the respondent is not represented.