JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - These are two connected plaintiff's second appeals against judgments and decrees dated 7-10-1978 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, allowing appeal no. 276 and 275 of 1977-78 Banda dismissing plaintiff's suits by setting aside judgments and decree dated 31-7-1978 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class Karwi/Mau, district Banda in two cases u/s 229-B of Act I of 1951. 2. Smt. Shivraniya and Nirbhai filed two suits against U.P. State and Gaon Stbha u/s 229-B, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in respect of 3 plots total area 13 bigha 16 biswa situate in village Mahuta Rupooli, Pargana Karwi, District Banda with the allegations that the L.M.C. Ramyapur allotted the land to them on 26-3-1966. that the plaintiffs were landless agricultural labourers, that they were in possession and that the lease had been attested by the S.K. They therefore, prayed for declaration in their favour. 3. The U.P. State denied the case of the plaintiffs and alleged that the land belonged to Gaon Sabha. 4. The Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha also denied the cases of the plaintiffs and alleged that the land was of public utility. That the leases if any, given by the previous Pradhan had not been given effect to, that the plaintiffs were not landless agricultural labourers; that there sons had 35 bigha of land at the time of allotment and that the plaintiffs had filed any application for mutation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties regarding both the appeals together as common question of law and fact are involved and I have perused the record. This order shall govern both of them. Its copy shall be placed on the connected file. 6. It has been argued that the borrowed copies of judgment and decree will not save limitation. Reliance has been placed on 1971 A.L.J. page 1205 A.I.R. 1970 Mad. page 353 that appeal cannot be filed on borrowed copies of judgment and decree as appeal cannot be filed without Collectors permission and required Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti Rules; that validity of lease cannot be challenged in case u/s 229-B also because it was not pleaded; that documentary evidence was admitted and appraised on behalf of defendant respondent without giving opportunity to the appellant to rebut them. 7. 7. It has been argued in reply that there is no proof that borrowed copies of judgment and decree were filed along with memorandum of first appeal ; that appeal was held maintainable and no such ground was taken which cannot be taken in second appeal ; that the lease which was not acted upon and was irregular was not verified by Supervisor Kanungo as required by rules, its validity can be looked into in a declaratory suit under section 229-B. That the documents were appraised by the courts and its copies were got filed and were not objected no rebuttal was available and required. 8. Section 12 of the Limitation Act reads as follows :- Sec. 12. "Exclusion of time in legal proceeding. -(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded; (2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded. (3) Where a decree or order is appealed from or sought to be Revised or reviewed, where an application is made for leave to appeal from a decree or order, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the judgment on which decree or order is founded shall also be excluded. (4) In computing the period of limitation of an application to set aside an award, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. Explanation. In computing under this section the time requisite for obtaining a copy of a decree or an order, any time taken by the court to prepare the decree or order before an application top a copy thereof is made shall not be excluded " 9. Only sub-section (2) of the said quoted section is relevant for the purpose of this case. Only sub-section (2) of the said quoted section is relevant for the purpose of this case. Section 12 nowhere lays down as to whom the benefit of excluding the period of obtaining the copies should be given but word `requisite' has been used which means copies of the judgment and decree of the court sought to be applied against which are thus necessary requirements of the appellant himself. The meaning of the term 'requisite' is that which is necessary, something indispensible. Therefore, it means that it is the appellant to obtain the copies of the judgments and decree as required for filing the appeal. The time requisite for obtaining them only shall be excluded. If the required copies were obtained by a third person not intending to file appeal who obtains them for some other purpose like for self perusal the time spent for obtaining the required copies by him shall not be available to the actual appellant who filed the appeal beyond good time prescribed. Reliance can be safely placed on State v. Hari Shanker, 1971 A.L.J. 1205 (FB) a though it was a criminal case but as section 12 of the Indian Limitation Act is applicable both to criminal cases and civil and Revenue cases by using word copies of the decree sentence or order appealed from. 10. In view of above Ram Kishun Shastri v. Kashi Bai, 1960 A.L.J. (4th A.L.J.) 152 is not applicable to the present case as in that case the copy of the decree was applied for by the clerk of the counsel of the appellant and State v. Kadiya, A.I.R. 1952 Himanchal Pradesh 6 is a do not applicable to the present case as the copy was applied for by the father of the murdered person. 11. In the present case the copies of the judgment and decree were applied for by Sri Bhalendra Kumar Advocate, Karwi per copy of application no. 2026 dated 7-8-1978 per copy of form no. 2, for self perusal filed in the learned Additional Commissioner's court and question answer form was also tiled that no appeal was filed but in the question instead of 31-7-1978 date of judgment was given to be 30-7-1975 but it has got no bearing on the case. 2026 dated 7-8-1978 per copy of form no. 2, for self perusal filed in the learned Additional Commissioner's court and question answer form was also tiled that no appeal was filed but in the question instead of 31-7-1978 date of judgment was given to be 30-7-1975 but it has got no bearing on the case. These papers go to show that in the first appeal which was filed on 1-9-1978 by D.G.C.(R) Jhansi which was certainly beyond time, if time for obtaining requisite copy is not excluded. The argument of the learned D.G.C. (R) that the copies were applied for by D.G.C. (R) concerned of the district is also not correct because D.G.C. (R) was Sri Jugul Kishor as is clear from his application in both the cases as D.G.C. (R) dated 8-12-1971 for adjournment. Thus it is clear that the copies of the judgment and decree were not obtained by the D.G.C. (R) of the District but by a stranger Vakil who had obtained it for his own perusal, therefore, the time taken for obtaining it will not be excluded for filing the appeal by D.G.C. (R) on behalf of the State. This point was totally ignored by the lower appellate court and it cannot be said that it was not raised when copies of the application and form 2 and question answer form were filed in the lower appellate court for proving that the copy was not obtained by any agency of the State or Gaon Sabha. Therefore, the appeal was filed beyond time and was liable to be dismissed for this reason alone as no application was moved u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and the delay was not at all explained. Therefore, the appeal was filed beyond time and was liable to be dismissed for this reason alone as no application was moved u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and the delay was not at all explained. Both the suits were filed by the allottees for declaration of sirdari right on the basis of the pattas granted to them which were verified by Supervisor Kanungo as is clear from the statement of the Pradhan, therefore, it cannot be said that the pattas to the appellants were void ab initio, therefore, the validity of the patta should not have been looked into by the learned Additional Commissioner unless the pattas were got cancelled by the State from the court of the Collector of the district who alone is competent o do so as has been held in Poorva Madhyamic Vidyalaya v. State of U.P., S.A. No. 41 of 1970-71 decided by full Bench of the Board of Revenue on 19-3-1981. 12. In view of the matter these appeals are liable to be allowed and the judgments and decree passed by the lower appellate court are liable to be set aside and that of the trial court are liable to be restored and confirmed. 13. In view of the above, these appeals are hereby allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by the lower appellate court are set aside and the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court are restored and confirmed.