1954 (11) TMI 55 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 4, Limitation Act in relation to cross-objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code.
- Title dispute over possession of fields 104, 105, and 106 in mahal No. 3 of 'mauza' Dhanoli.
- Determination of joint possession and mesne profits entitlement.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute over possession of three fields in mahal No. 3. The plaintiff sought possession and mesne profits for the years 1941-1945. The lower court decreed joint possession of half the interest in the fields and dismissed the mesne profits claim, leading to a cross-objection by the respondents-defendants.

2. The main issue revolved around the applicability of Section 4, Limitation Act to cross-objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code. The court examined the timeline of filing the cross-objection and concluded that the objection was not barred by time, citing relevant legal precedents.

3. The judgment delved into the historical ownership and settlement details of the disputed fields, tracing back to the 1864 settlement. The plaintiff's title was derived from a deed of sale in 1944, connecting back to the original owner. Various settlement records and proceedings were analyzed to determine the rightful ownership.

4. The court scrutinized the evidence of possession and ownership presented by both parties. It was established that the fields were originally held jointly by co-sharers, leading to the decision of awarding joint possession to the plaintiff for a 1/3 interest in the fields.

5. Regarding mesne profits, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, citing legal precedents to support the entitlement to profits due to dispossession. The judgment modified the lower court's decree, awarding joint possession and mesne profits to the plaintiff, with costs distributed based on the outcome in all courts involved.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the legal principles surrounding cross-objections, analyzed the historical ownership of the disputed fields, and determined the rights of the parties involved in the possession and profits of the said fields.