Full Judgment
B.B. Ghose, J.
1. The only point involved in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The trial Court made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal by the defendants that decree was reversed by the Subordinate Judge who held that the suit was barred by one year's rule of limitation under Article 11-A, Indian Limitation Act. What happened was this the plaintiff obtained a decree against third persons in a previous suit. In execution of that decree they obtained symbolical possession against the judgment-debtors. They, however, wanted to remove certain huts which were on the land and to take khas possession. These huts were claimed by the defendants, who resisted the plaintiff's in taking possession on the ground that they were on the land as tenants in their own right. The executing Court rejected the plaintiffs' application for khas possession on the finding that the defendants were on the land in their own right. That order is dated the 28th February 1918. The present suit was brought on the 10th December 1919, that is more than one year after the order was passed. The suit is evidently barred by Article 11-A, Limitation Act.
2. The appeal must, therefore be dismissed with costs.
Cuming, J.
3. I agree.