Principles

·  PRESCRIPTION — Possession not interrupted by land settlement.

·  LAND LAW — Ejectment — Limitation of action  — Settlement does not prevent running of period of limitation against owner.

A land settlement or re-settlement does not interrupt a period of prescription, and time accrued prior to settlement is part of the prescriptive period, which may bar the owner’s right to eject.

A land settlement or re-settlement does not interrupt a period of prescription, and time accrued prior to settlement is part of the prescriptive period, which may bar the owner’s right to eject.

Judgment

Osman El Tayeb, P.J., 1957:— Plaintiffs- respondents are the registered owners of 6 16/24 uds known  as part of Share No. I in Sagia No. 10, Keli. They applied in the Court below for an order of ejectment of defendant on the ground that he entered into possession of the said plot as trespasser. Defendant Counter claimed for a declaration that he has ecquired a prescriptive title and prayed for an order of rectification of the register. The said plot was re-registered by the Settlement and Re-settle ment of 1951.

The learned District Judge from the start had his mind fixed on the Settlement of 1951 and the idea that no prescription title can be acquired for a period before the time of the Resettlement. He means to say that in order to prove prescription the prescriptive period must be counted after the Re-settlement This wrong conception of the law led him to disregard the main ground on which counterclaimant is relying, that of prescription, and he framed one issue that was not pleaded by the claimant and on wnich he never relied. This issue was rectification of the register on the ground of mistake or fraud.

The limitayion  of an action starts to run from the date of . accrual of the right of action for the plaintiff to eject defendant runs from the time when defendant entered into adverse possession. An intervening re-settlement  has no effect on continuation of the possession  of the claimant. In the second place, Land Settlement and Registration Ordinance. s. 85 is not confined to rectification of the register on the ground of mistake and fraud only. The ground of prescription is specifically mentioned in paragraph (c). this  means that at any time when the  register becomes final within the meaning of Land Settlement and Registration Ordinance. s. 18, a claim based on prescription can be raised. In the third place. in the case of mohamed Ali Shar Albil v. Mohy El Din Dafalla, PC-REV-80-1956  (Ed Damer), I considered a similar application to be one for leave to appeal from the decision of the Settlement of 1951, and I recommended that the application be dismissed summarily. The Honourable Mr. Justice Nor did not agree and stated: “I do not think, and the Honour. able Chief Justice  agrees with me, that the decision of the Settlement Officer of 1951 is a bar to applicant’s claim by prescription.” The main issue in this case should be one of prescription.

On these grounds I set aside the decree of District Judge. Shendi, as indicated