Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 612 (GAU)

State Of Mizoram v. Vanthangliana

2020-07-02

NELSON SAILO

body2020
JUDGMENT Nelson Sailo, J. - Heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate for the appellants/defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (State defendants) and Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli for the respondent No.1/plaintiff (plaintiff). None appears for the respondent Nos.2 to 38/defendant Nos.5 to 41 (private defendants) despite notice. 2. This is an appeal filed by the State defendants against the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2008 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl District, Aizawl in Title Suit No.2 of 1995, whereby the Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The operative portion of the impugned Judgment and Order is abstracted below- wxyz "22. Therefore, it is ordered and decreed that the Permit No. 192 of 1965 is a permanent one and the plaintiff is entitled to get rental compensation from the defendants nos.1 to 4 for dispossessing the plaintiff and accommodating the defendants nos.5 to 41. The rental compensation to be paid to the plaintiff is to be assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District. The defendants nos.1 to 4 are ordered to evict the defendants nos.5 to 41 from the land of the plaintiff and give vacant possession to him. In the event of the defendants nos.1 to 4 unable to evict the defendants from the land of the plaintiff, the plaintiff''s land covered under Permit No. 192 of 1965 should be acquired as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and reasonable compensation as per the present Market value should be paid to the plaintiff. In the event of the defendants nos.5 to 41 are evicted by the defendant nos.1 - 4 from the plaintiff''s land, they should be compensated by giving alternate site for them to stay or they should be paid compensation. The defendants Nos.1 to 4 are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2,04,700/- as compensation for crops destroyed and also to pay interest over the said sum at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from January 1968 till the amount is paid. The parties shall bear their own costs. zyxw wxyz With the above order/decree and direction this suit is finally disposed of." zyxw 3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the plaintiff is that he purchased a piece of land measuring an area of 14 bighas covered by Pass No. 8 of 1964 from one Mr. The parties shall bear their own costs. zyxw wxyz With the above order/decree and direction this suit is finally disposed of." zyxw 3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the plaintiff is that he purchased a piece of land measuring an area of 14 bighas covered by Pass No. 8 of 1964 from one Mr. Ralliantawna in the year 1964. When he purchased the said land, there were a number of fruit bearing trees within the said land and that he himself planted a number of such trees. In the year 1965, he was issued permit No.192 of 1965 by the erstwhile District Council which superseded the earlier Pass No.8 of 1964. In the year 1966, there was disturbance in Mizoram and sometime in the year 1967 to 1968, the Government of Assam with the help of Security Forces grouped together the people of different villages within the Sairang Village. In doing so, the defendant Nos.5 to 7, 9 to 16, 18 to 20, 22 to 26, 28 to 32, 34 to 36 and 38 to 39 were allowed to stay in the land of the plaintiff without obtaining his consent and permission. The said defendants constructed their respective houses and began to live in the plaintiff''s land without paying any rent. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4, 7, 15, 26, 32, 36, 30 and 34 also illegally disposed of the land to the defendant Nos. 8, 21, 27, 33, 37, 40 and 41 respectively. The plaintiff contends that Permit No.192 of 1965 is a permanent one and the Government if it so requires can acquire the land for public purposes on payment of reasonable compensation as per the conditions mentioned in the permit itself. According to the plaintiff, although grouping was done during the time when Mizoram was only a district of Assam but on attaining Statehood, the assets and liabilities have shifted to the State of Mizoram and therefore, the State defendants will be liable to pay compensation and do the needful to give the plaintiff vacant possession of his land. The plaintiff also quantified the amount of compensation due to him towards the damages caused to the fruit bearing trees in his land at Rs.2,04,700/-. 4. The plaintiff also quantified the amount of compensation due to him towards the damages caused to the fruit bearing trees in his land at Rs.2,04,700/-. 4. After the disturbances in Mizoram was over, the erstwhile District Council authorities asked the private defendants to look for other land and to move out from the land of the plaintiff. However, instead of moving out, the defendants continued to stay and in fact, as stated earlier, the Defendant Nos.7, 15, 26, 32, 36, 30 and 34 handed over the land of the plaintiff illegally to defendant Nos.8, 21, 27, 33, 37, 40 and 41 respectively. The District Council vide Executive Order No.19 of 1969 dated 22.08.1969 ordered the defendant Nos.5 to 41 to pay nominal rent but the same was also not paid. Thereafter, the Government of Mizoram vide Order No. RGV 4/74/2 dated 18.03.1974, informed the private defendants to vacate the land of the plaintiff but they failed to do so. Again, the defendant No.3 vide Order dated 05.05.1975, directed the private defendants not to repair their house or do anything within the land of the plaintiff but without paying any heed, they continued to do whatever they pleased on the land of the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff approached the defendant Nos.3 and 4 on many occasions, they failed to take any action to evict the private defendants from the Suit land. Consequently, the plaintiff through his counsel served them a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on 09.02.1989. After the notice was served, though the plaintiff was informed by the defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 that they will be taking necessary action but however, no steps were taken. Therefore, the plaintiff filed Title Suit No.2 of 1995. According to the plaintiff, he regularly paid tax for his land upto 1995 and that the cause of action arose when the private defendants began to occupy his land under the authority of the State defendants in January, 1967 and that it continues till the reliefs claimed are fulfilled. Thus, the plaintiff in his plaint has prayed for the following reliefs- wxyz "(a) Let a decree be passed declaring that the permit No. 192 of 1965 is a permanent one and by virtue of that permit the plaintiff has heritable and transferable right of use or of sub letting the land covered under permit No.192 of 1965. Thus, the plaintiff in his plaint has prayed for the following reliefs- wxyz "(a) Let a decree be passed declaring that the permit No. 192 of 1965 is a permanent one and by virtue of that permit the plaintiff has heritable and transferable right of use or of sub letting the land covered under permit No.192 of 1965. zyxw wxyz (b) Let a decree be passed against the defendants declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per month per house being occupied by the defendants 5 to 41 at the instance of the defendants 1 to 4. The defendants 1 to 4 be directed to pay rent at the rate of Rs.50/- per month per house occupied by the defendants No.5 to 41 w.e.f. January 1968 till vacant possession is given to the plaintiff. zyxw wxyz (c) Let a decree be passed directing all the defendants to give vacant possession of the land covered under permit No.192 of 1965 and if the defendants 1 to 4 require the land for public purposes let the said land be acquired as per the provision of Land Acquisition Act and adequate compensation be paid to the plaintiff. zyxw wxyz (d) Let a decree be passed directing the defendants 1 to 4 to pay compensation for the crops destroyed at the rate mentioned in para 7 of the plaint. Let interest @ 18% per annum over the said sum be awarded w.e.f. 1967- 68 till date. zyxw wxyz (e) By way of mandatory/permanent injunction the defendants 1 to 4 be directed not to issue any pass/permit/LSC/Patta in the name of the defendants 5 to 41 or any other person and the defendants 5 to 41 be restrained from making any kind of structure permanent or temporary within the said land covered under permit No.192 of 1965. zyxw wxyz (f) Let the cost of the suit and interest pendante lite & future interest @ 18% per annum over the land compensation/rent be decreed in favour of the plaintiff. zyxw wxyz (g) Let a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants for any other and further reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled as per law, justice, equity and good conscience." zyxw 5. zyxw wxyz (g) Let a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants for any other and further reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled as per law, justice, equity and good conscience." zyxw 5. Against the Title Suit, the State defendants in their written statement took a preliminary objection that there was no cause of action against them, the Suit was barred by limitation, principles of estoppel, waiver, acquiescence, it was bad for multifarious cause of action and not properly drafted as per the provision of the CPC. On merit, it was contended that they have no knowledge about the fruit bearing trees planted by the plaintiff in the Suit land and therefore, he should be put to strict proof of the same. Further, Permit No.192 of 1965 cannot be treated as a valid permit as per the Mizoram District (Agricultural Land) Rules, 1971 as provided under Section 11 of the Mizoram District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963. It was contended that the Revenue Department issued notice from time to time to the effect that permit previously granted have to be converted into Periodic Patta and as the plaintiff failed to do so, his permit cannot be considered to be a valid permit. It was further contended that the State defendants are in no way responsible for paying compensation to the plaintiff as the private defendants were not allotted any house pass and the plaintiff himself should file an eviction suit against them. Lastly, it was contended that if the cause of action arose in the month of January, 1967, the plaintiff himself is guilty of laches and therefore, the Suit should be dismissed even on this ground. 6. The private defendants also filed their written statement against the Suit and they raised a preliminary objection that the Suit was barred by limitation and non-joinder of parties, there was no cause of action against them, the Suit was not properly verified in accordance with law and as the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC was not served, the Suit was liable to be dismissed. The private defendants also contended that there was implied consent given by the plaintiff to have possession of the land and even if they are to leave the land, the State defendants were liable to pay them compensation in return for giving vacant possession of the land. The private defendants also contended that there was implied consent given by the plaintiff to have possession of the land and even if they are to leave the land, the State defendants were liable to pay them compensation in return for giving vacant possession of the land. On merit, the private defendants contended that they were grouped without their consent and were forced to leave their landed properties in different villages in Mizoram. They also denied that the District Council authorities had asked them to move out from the land of the plaintiff and to look out for other land. No copies of the Order No.19 of 1969 dated 22.08.1969 was ever given to them and that no one directed them to pay nominal rent for occupying their respective land. The entire exercise of grouping people staying in different villages within Sairang village was done in public interest and therefore, the State defendants are only responsible to pay compensation as claimed by the plaintiff. Further, the State defendants are also estopped from evicting them as they are in occupation of the land for more than 30 years. Likewise, the plaintiff is also estopped from claiming the land to be his and for evicting them from the land as he never raised any protest for the last more than 30 years. 7. After the pleadings were complete, the Court below framed the following fourteen (14) issues - wxyz "1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? zyxw wxyz 2. Whether the Defendants 1 - 4 are necessary parties. zyxw wxyz 3. Whether the Defendants 1 - 4 are in any way responsible to pay rental charges for the occupation by Defendants No 5 - 41? zyxw wxyz 4. Whether the Defendants 5 - 41 are necessary parties? zyxw wxyz 5. Whether the Defendant Nos. 1 - 4 can escape their liabilities/ responsibilities and obligation towards Defendants No. 5 - 41 by ordering them to move out as they had grouped them in 1967 - 68. zyxw wxyz 6. Whether there is any cause of action against Defendant Nos. 5 - 41. zyxw wxyz 7. Whether the grouping was done for some purpose. If so, what is the effect, liabilities, responsibilities and obligations towards all the parties to the suit. zyxw wxyz 8. Whether Defendant Nos. 5 - 41 if found fit to be evicted, whether they are entitled to compensation/alternative sites. 5 - 41. zyxw wxyz 7. Whether the grouping was done for some purpose. If so, what is the effect, liabilities, responsibilities and obligations towards all the parties to the suit. zyxw wxyz 8. Whether Defendant Nos. 5 - 41 if found fit to be evicted, whether they are entitled to compensation/alternative sites. On who will the obligation or responsibility fall. zyxw wxyz 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed? If so, to what extent? zyxw wxyz 10. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties. zyxw wxyz 11. Whether the suit has been properly verified in accordance with law. zyxw wxyz 12. Whether the plaintiff has impliedly consented to the land being in possession of the Defendants Nos. 5 - 41. zyxw wxyz 13. Whether the Defendants Nos. 1 - 4 are liable to pay compensation to the Defendant Nos. 5 - 41 in return for giving the vacant possession of the land to the plaintiff. zyxw wxyz 14. Whether the suit should be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it." zyxw 8. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined four (4) witnesses including himself and the private defendants examined two (2) witnesses. As for the State defendants, they did not examine any witness. After the parties adduced their evidence, the Trial Court took up Issue Nos.1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 14 together and decided them in favour of the plaintiff. In doing so, the Trial Court also held that the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 was not applicable in the State of Mizoram. Likewise, the remaining issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff and the Trial Court thus decreed the Suit in favour of the plaintiff as already abstracted herein above. 9. Appearing for the State defendants, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate submits that according to the plaintiff himself, the cause of action arose in the year 1967 and by applying Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation period of 12 years expired in the year 1979. The Suit having been filed in the year 1995, the same is clearly barred by limitation. By referring to the case of L. Biakchhunga Vs. The Suit having been filed in the year 1995, the same is clearly barred by limitation. By referring to the case of L. Biakchhunga Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (2006) 2 GauLR 610 , the learned State counsel submits that the law laid down by this Court at the relevant time was that Limitation Act will apply in the State and therefore, the learned Trial Court could not have come to a finding contrary to the decision of this Court. The learned Government Advocate by referring to the case of Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese & Ors., (2004) 6 SCC 378 submits that if a suit is found to be barred by limitation, the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit stands ousted. She further submits that no reason has been assigned by the Trial Court in holding that the permit was a permanent one. In fact, the permit does not provide for any boundary description and therefore, its authenticity is only doubtful. She submits that as per Order 7 Rule 3 of the CPC, it is a must that the boundary description of the suit land should be provided. Further, as per the rules of pleading, material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim should be pleaded in a concise form but the same is absent in the present case. She therefore submits that under the given facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained. To support her submission, she relies upon Pratibha Singh & Anr. Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad & Anr., (2003) 2 SCC 330 . 10. The learned Government Advocate by referring to the Order dated 05.05.1975 (Exhibit P-4) issued by the Directorate of Settlement and Land Records submits that though the Order mentions that about 20 people were temporarily settled in the garden of the plaintiff located at Sairang area but however, the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned Judgment and Order did not specify or come to a finding as to who the 20 persons were and moreover, the plaintiff has arrayed as many as 37 private defendants (as compared to the 20 persons), claiming that they were in occupation of his land covered by Permit No. 192 of 1965. She submits that as there is no boundary description on the land claimed by the plaintiff as well, there is therefore no evidence to establish the fact that all the private defendants were in occupation of the land of the plaintiff. 11. The learned Government Advocate also submits that the permit of the plaintiff as claimed by him is not a permanent permit since any permit issued by the erstwhile District Council has to be converted into a Periodic Patta as per the provisions of the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1963 and the Rules framed thereunder. The plaintiff having failed to take any steps for conversion of his permit, his claim for compensation and other reliefs is therefore not maintainable. In this connection, she refers to the statements made at paragraph No.6 (ii) of the Written Statement filed by the State defendants. She further submits that it is clear from the evidence of the plaintiff himself that they did not take any steps to evict the private defendants from their lands and therefore, they have only allowed the private defendants to settle in the Suit land without objection. As such, the Suit of the plaintiff suffers from the vice of waiver, acquiescence and estoppel. 12. The learned Government Advocate further submits that though the plaintiff claims that the private defendants were settled in his land with the help of Security Forces when the State of Mizoram was only a district of the State of Assam but no claim has been made from the State of Assam. The Trial Court without considering this aspect has fastened all the liabilities upon the Government of Mizoram and therefore, the impugned judgment and order is erroneous. 13. The learned Government Advocate further submits that there is no evidence with regard to the damage caused to the crops and fruit bearing trees as claimed by the plaintiff. By referring to the evidence of the plaintiff himself, she submits that he has no personal knowledge about the crops and fruit bearing trees planted in the Suit land and rather, he came to know about the same from his father. She submits that in his cross examination, he clearly admitted that he did not personally visit the garden as it was at a distance of 2 to 3 kilometers from his residence. She submits that in his cross examination, he clearly admitted that he did not personally visit the garden as it was at a distance of 2 to 3 kilometers from his residence. She therefore submits that there is no evidence to establish the quantity that was damaged and also the value as claimed by the plaintiff, the amount claimed and awarded by the learned Trial Court is only speculative and perverse. Therefore, even on this count, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained. The learned Government Advocate also submits that even assuming for the sake of argument without admission that the State Government at any rate is to be held liable on the claim made by the plaintiff, the same cannot be for a period beyond the date of filing of the Suit i.e., 19.07.1995. She thus submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. Alternately, the case may be remanded back to the Trial Court for proper decision on the issues framed. 14. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, the learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the State defendants never raised any objection in their written statement that all the private defendants exceeding 20 in numbers were in occupation of the plaintiff''s land. He submits that the plaintiff clearly mentioned the quantity and variety of fruit bearing trees that were damaged due to unauthorized occupation of his land. The plaintiff in his examination-in- chief clearly reiterated the number of quantity of crops and fruits, which were destroyed. The defendants on the other hand, never disputed the claim in their written statement except for making a casual statement that the plaintiff should be put to strict proof. The fact of the plaintiff having grown fruit bearing trees and crops in the Suit land can very well be seen from the evidence of Sh. Biaksanga, who was examined as one of the plaintiff''s witness. The said witness during his cross examination deposed that the Security Forces in occupying the Suit land destroyed the trees and crops of the plaintiff. He therefore submits that the Trial Court rightly awarded compensation towards damages to crops and fruit bearing trees as claimed by the plaintiff. 15. Biaksanga, who was examined as one of the plaintiff''s witness. The said witness during his cross examination deposed that the Security Forces in occupying the Suit land destroyed the trees and crops of the plaintiff. He therefore submits that the Trial Court rightly awarded compensation towards damages to crops and fruit bearing trees as claimed by the plaintiff. 15. The learned senior counsel further submits that from the order issued by the erstwhile District Council vide Executive (Revenue) Order No. 19 of 1969 (Exhibit P-2), it can be seen that there were Grouping Centres opened by the authorities concerned due to the prevailing situation at that time and people from different villages were settled in Grouping Centres by occupying private lands. Despite this, the private land owners were still required to pay taxes to retain their respective land and the plaintiff too paid his taxes regularly. Further, by referring to the Order dated 18.03.1974 signed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department marked as Exhibit P-3, the learned senior counsel submits that the Government was aware of the fact that due to insurgency, many people were settled in private lands by making them as Grouping Centres and that the Government was taking all the steps to relocate them in due course. Likewise, in case of the plaintiff, an Order dated 05.05.1975 (Exhibit P-4), showing that 20 people were temporarily settled in his land was issued and that the occupants of the plaintiff''s land were instructed to find a suitable place to relocate them immediately. Similarly, by referring to Exhibit P-5, P-6 and P-7, the learned senior counsel submits that the State authorities time and again have been directing the settlers at various Grouping Centres including those who were occupying the plaintiff''s land to evacuate their occupied land as soon as possible. However, despite all such orders the authorities concerned failed to take any meaningful steps to evict the private defendants from the land of the plaintiff, which ultimately had led to the filing of the Title Suit by the plaintiff. 16. However, despite all such orders the authorities concerned failed to take any meaningful steps to evict the private defendants from the land of the plaintiff, which ultimately had led to the filing of the Title Suit by the plaintiff. 16. The learned senior counsel by referring to Exhibit P-8 submits that the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Revenue Department vide his letter dated 17.11.1987, wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, i/c Revenue, Aizawl conveying the Government''s approval for changing the plaintiff''s Permit No.192 of 1965 under (Agricultural Land) Act, 1960 to a permit under the Mizo District (Agricultural Land) Act, 1965. It is therefore clear that the permit of the plaintiff was validly issued by the official defendants. Moreover, no objection on the said permit has been made by the State defendants in their written statement. By referring to the Permit exhibited as Exhibit P-1, the learned senior counsel submits that the same was issued with certain conditions. Condition No. 6 provides that any part or whole of the area, may at any time, be acquired by the Executive Committee for public purposes on payment of reasonable compensation as may be determined by the Executive Committee. He therefore submits that besides the Permit being genuine, the plaintiff is also entitled to adequate compensation, if the land is to be acquired. 17. Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, by referring to Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 submits that the period of limitation for possession of immovable property based on previous possession either on title or not on title is 12 years from the date of dispossession. Therefore, even going by the Limitation Act and having regard to the approval given by the Revenue Department on 17.11.1987 (Exhibit P-8) for changing the permit under the Mizo District Agricultural Act, 1956, there is no delay in filing the Suit. He submits that even otherwise, the applicability of Limitation Act in the State of Mizoram came to be finally settled with the judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court in J. Thansiama Vs. State of Mizoram & Ors., (2015) 5 GauLT 7 (SC) . The learned Trial Court rendered the impugned judgment way back in 17.06.2008 and therefore, the decision of the Apex Court rendered on 08.09.2015 cannot be applied retrospectively to the case of the plaintiff. 18. The learned senior counsel by referring to the deposition of Sh. State of Mizoram & Ors., (2015) 5 GauLT 7 (SC) . The learned Trial Court rendered the impugned judgment way back in 17.06.2008 and therefore, the decision of the Apex Court rendered on 08.09.2015 cannot be applied retrospectively to the case of the plaintiff. 18. The learned senior counsel by referring to the deposition of Sh. H. Raltawna, who is the plaintiff''s witness submits that it is clear from his deposition that the land of the plaintiff was indeed occupied by many persons due to the grouping of people at the relevant time and that the persons occupying the plaintiff''s land were asked to vacate the land within six (6) months w.e.f. 19.06.1975 vide the order passed on the same day. He submits that the deposition of this witness has neither been shaken nor falsified by the defendants. The State defendants having not examined any witness of their own, the learned Trial Court rightly decreed the Suit in favour of the plaintiff. 19. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the lower court records. 20. Before proceeding with the case on merits, it will be necessary to advert to the issue raised on limitation i.e. the suit being barred by limitation. It may be noticed that the plaintiff served notice to the State defendants under Section 80 CPC on 09.02.1989 and thereafter, filed the Suit only on 19.07.1995. Section 80 of the CPC provides that subject to the provision provided in sub-section (2) of the same section, no suit shall be instituted against the Government or against the Public Officer in respect of any Act purporting to be done by such Public Officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered. It would appear that there is no outer limit specified for filing a suit after the expiry of the prescribed two months period, but however, it may be seen in the instant case that it took more than 5 years for the plaintiff to file the Suit after serving notice under Section 80 CPC. There is no explanation as to what prevented the plaintiff from filing the Suit soon after the two months period notice was over. It may further be noticed that according to the plaintiff, the defendant Nos. There is no explanation as to what prevented the plaintiff from filing the Suit soon after the two months period notice was over. It may further be noticed that according to the plaintiff, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, 7, 15, 26, 32, 36, 30 and 34 illegally disposed of his land to the defendant Nos. 8, 21, 27, 33, 37, 40 and 41 respectively. However, there is no mention as to when the land was illegally disposed of by them and what steps the plaintiff took against such illegal action. According to the plaintiff''s own admission, the cause of action arouse in the month of January, 1967 while on the other hand, the Suit was filed only on 19.07.1995 i.e. after about 28 years. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action continues till the relief''s claim are fulfilled. The plaintiff contends that payment of rent is due every month and therefore, the cause of action is not diminish. However, the fact remains that rent was undisputedly never paid by the private defendants to the plaintiff at any point of time and therefore, the argument presented by the plaintiff that the cause of action continues to survive cannot be accepted. 21. In the impugned Judgment and Order, the learned Trial Court has mentioned that on 20.06.1999, preliminary hearing on the maintainability of the Suit with reference to Issue Nos. 1, 6 and 14 in particular were taken up and that the suit was found to be maintainable. The records however does not reveal as to how the Suit was found to be maintainable on 20.04.1999 as no reasons were recorded. All that the Order passed on 20.04.1999 says is that the Suit is maintainable on admission. The Trial Court nevertheless has dealt with the issue on limitation subsequently while passing the impugned Judgment and Order by coming to a finding that the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the State of Mizoram in view of the decision of this Court in State of Meghalaya Vs. U. William Mynsong,1987 2 GauLR 221 . 22. The Trial Court nevertheless has dealt with the issue on limitation subsequently while passing the impugned Judgment and Order by coming to a finding that the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the State of Mizoram in view of the decision of this Court in State of Meghalaya Vs. U. William Mynsong,1987 2 GauLR 221 . 22. This Court in the above case referred to the Notification dated 14.03.1966 issued by the Governor of Assam by which it was notified that the Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply to the tribal area of Assam as specified in Part-A of the Table appended to paragraph 20 of the 6th Schedule to the Constitution of India. The Notification was accepted and it was held that Limitation Act will not apply in the tribal areas of the State of Meghalaya. Though the same ratio was applied for the State of Mizoram but however, not in all cases. There were conflicting decisions of this Court, i.e. for and against the applicability of the Limitation Act in the State of Mizoram. The matter was however put to rest after the Apex Court rendered its decision in the case of J. Thansiama (Supra). Relevant portions of the said Judgment is reproduced hereunder:- wxyz "4 The Governor of Assam issued Notification bearing No.TAD/GA/12/64 dated 14.3.1966 whereby the operation of the Limitation Act 1963 was excluded from the tribal areas of Assam as specified in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, the details of which have been extracted above. The Notification dated 14.3.1966 is in the following terms: zyxw wxyz "In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of the sub-paragraph (1) and sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 12 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, the Governor of Assam is pleased to direct that the Limitation Act, 1963, (No.36 of 1963) shall not apply to the Tribal Areas of Assam specified in Part A of the table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India, with effect from the 1st of January, 1964." zyxw wxyz 5. It will be necessary to take note of the fact that as on the date of the said Notification Mizo District was included in the tribal areas of Assam. zyxw wxyz 6. ....................................................... zyxw wxyz 7. ...................................................... zyxw wxyz 8. ...................................................... zyxw wxyz 9. It will be necessary to take note of the fact that as on the date of the said Notification Mizo District was included in the tribal areas of Assam. zyxw wxyz 6. ....................................................... zyxw wxyz 7. ...................................................... zyxw wxyz 8. ...................................................... zyxw wxyz 9. What, however, would require a pointed notice is that the Notification dated 14.03.1966 issued by the Governor of Assam excluding the operation of the Limitation Act from the tribal areas of the State of Assam ceased to be applicable to the Mizo District once the areas therein no long formed a part of the tribal areas of Assam and, instead, became a part of the tribal areas of the Union Territory of Mizoram with effect from 21.1.1972. The further developments (historical, geographical and constitutional) namely, the exclusion/omission of the Mizo district even from the tribal areas of the Union Territory of Mizoram; the dissolution of the Mizo District Council and the addition of Pawai, Lakher and Chakma Districts to part III of Para 20 of the Sixth Schedule as the tribal areas of the Union Territory of Mizoram, of which all developments had occurred subsequent to the creation of the Union Territory of Mizoram, would further fortify the above position. The aforesaid facts would demonstrate that the Notification dated 14.03.1966 ex facie would not apply to the areas within the erstwhile Mizo District of the State of Assam once the said areas ceased to be so and came to comprise the Union Territory of Mizoram with effect from 21.1.1972 by virtue of Section 6 of the Reorganisation Act." zyxw 23. From the above abstract, what can be seen is that the Apex Court has held that the Notification dated 14.03.1966 issued by the Governor of Assam would hold good so long as Mizo District (Mizoram) was one of the District of Assam. However, after Mizo District became the Union Territory of Mizoram w.e.f. 21.01.1972, the Notification dated 14.03.1966 ceased to apply. 24. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that as the impugned Judgment and Order of the Trial Court was passed at an earlier point of time i.e. on 17.06.2008, the Apex Court decision of 08.09.2015 therefore cannot have retrospective application. 24. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submits that as the impugned Judgment and Order of the Trial Court was passed at an earlier point of time i.e. on 17.06.2008, the Apex Court decision of 08.09.2015 therefore cannot have retrospective application. I am afraid the same cannot be accepted as the Apex Court has held that the Notification dated 14.03.1966 which barred the application of the Limitation Act in the tribal areas of the State of Assam ceased to apply to the erstwhile Mizo District (Mizoram) after it was declared to be a Union Territory i.e. w.e.f. 21.01.1972. The Title Suit having been filed on 19.07.1995, the same is only barred by limitation. This apart, the present appeal being a continuation of the original Suit, the decision of the Apex Court will apply on this count as well. The Apex Court in Vareed Jacob Vs. Sosamma Geevarghese (Supra) held that the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a suit will be ousted if the suit or proceeding is barred by limitation. 25. From the above discussions, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Title Suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. That being the position, there is no scope for this Court to examine the case further on merits. The appeal thus succeeds and the impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2008 passed in Title Suit No. 2/1995 is hereby set aside. 26. Registry to send back the LCR.