Tulsiram Das Vs Mohamed Afzal alias Mirza

Calcutta High Court 11 Jun 1868 Special Appeal No. 2290 of 1867 (1868) 06 CAL CK 0021
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Special Appeal No. 2290 of 1867

Final Decision

Dismissed

Judgement Text

Translate:

L.S. Jackson, J.@mdashThis is a suit to set aside a survey award, and obtain a declaration of right, that is, confirmation of possession in the land comprised in that award. It appears that the land affected by the award belonged to a variety of parties, one of whom was Krishna Chandra, another Bairagi Das, and there were other parties who were his (Bairagi''s) coparceners. Krishna Chandra, one of those who wore affected, appealed against the survey award, but Bairagi Das did not so appeal. The present suit, however, is on the part of Bairagi Das and his co-sharers. The Lower Appellate Court has held that the suit is barred, because it was not brought within three years of the date of the final award against them. They maintain that the suit having been brought within three years of the decision on the appeal of Krishna Chandra Das, it is not barred by the law of limitation. It appears to us, however, that they are not entitled to the benefit of Krishna Chandra''s appeal. His rights and those of the present plaintiffs were distinct and separate. Then a separate question arises as to the plaintiffs other than Bairagi Das. They contend that they were not parties, i.e., they did not appear before the Survey Authorities; and as they were not parties to that award, they are not bound to bring their suit within three years from its date. In advancing this, they out away all the ground upon which their present action is based. If they were not parties to that award, and, consequently, were not affected by it, and, further, were not dispossessed, they have no cause of action whatever. If, on the other hand, the mere award gives them a cause of action (for they have no other), then their suit must have been instituted for the purpose of getting rid of that award, and therefore they must sue within the three years prescribed by the law. It appears to us, then, that all parties are barred, and that the decision of the Lower Court is right. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.

From The Blog
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Wins ₹4 Crore Tax Case at ITAT Mumbai
Nov
07
2025

Court News

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Wins ₹4 Crore Tax Case at ITAT Mumbai
Read More
Supreme Court to Decide If Section 12AA Registration Alone Grants Trusts 80G Tax Benefits for Donors
Nov
07
2025

Court News

Supreme Court to Decide If Section 12AA Registration Alone Grants Trusts 80G Tax Benefits for Donors
Read More