Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: Ss. 4 & 14(2)

  Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss. 4 & 14(2)-Period during which Court is closed-To be excluded: [Mien Abdul Aziz v. Dr. G. A. Chisty P L D 1959 Lah. 31 ref. ; Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Occhavlal Hargovandas Shah A I R 1927 Bom. 480 considered].   Appeal (Civil)-Against portion of decree only-Main tainable.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, r. 2-Plaint may be based on different rights asking for alternative reliefs Re-liberate abandonment of one of two inconsistent rights-Relief on basis of abandoned right cannot be claimed.   Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and others A I R 1951 S C 177 ; Ramayyan Gounden and another v. Pechi Ammal Koundach and others A I R 1955 Travancore 1.34 ; R. Samydra Vijayam Chettiar v. Srinivasa Alwar and others A I R 1956 Mad. 301 ; Attorney-General of the Colony of Fiji v. J. P. Baylay Ltd. P L D 1949 P C 274 ; Hariram Serowgee v. Madan Gopal Bagla and another A I R 1929 P C 77 and Raymond Lincoln v. Mrs. Alice Foupinel de Valence .A I R 1932 P C 95 ref. JUDGMENT   WAHIDUDDIN AHMED, J.-This second appeal arises out of Suit No. 45 of 1958 brought by appellants Nos. 1 to 5 against Res pondent No. 1 in the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Khairpur, for possession of certain agricultural property situated fn Deh Arbani Taluka Kotdiji, and movable property left by deceased Moosa Khan. The appellants claimed this property under a family settle ment alleged to have been arrived at on the 18th of March 1952 on the intervention of Mir Chattel alias Sahibzada Haji Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan Talpur and alleged that Ghulam Shah, respondent No. 1, was in possession of the property in dispute as a trespasser. In the suit, the appellants claimed a declaration that they were the lawful owners of the property in suit mentioned in paras. 6 and 7 and further prayed that a decree for the possession of the property in suit and ejectment of the respondent be granted to them. They further claimed for past and future mesne profits from Respondent No. 1. During the pendency of the suit, Mundhoo, appellant No. 5, died and appellants 5-A to 5-1 have been brought on the record as his legal…