1. This was a suit brought by the Plaintiffs as shebaits ofa certain Deity for the declaration of title to and recovery of possession of 8as of a certain property of which the Defendants Nos. 17-24 were the co-sharersof the Plaintiffs, the other Defendants being the auction-purchasers of 16annas of the property under a decree on a mortgage made by the said co-sharerDefendants. The Plaintiffs made the Common Manager of the estate of theauction-purchaser Defendants a party Defendant and also the auction-purchasersor rather those they supposed to be the auction-purchasers. The suit wasbrought about two days before the expiry of 12 years from the dispossession andat that time some of the auction-purchaser Defendants were dead and their heirswere brought on the record after the expiry of 12 years. It is contended by theDefendants who have appeared through their Common Manager that the suit isbarred by limitation under the provisions of sec. 22 of the Limitation Act.Under sec. 98, cl. 3 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the Common Manager has for thepurposes of management the same powers as the co-owners might have exercisedbut for his appointment and the co-owners are debarred from exercising suchpowers. It has been held in the case of Sibo Sundari Ghose v. Raj Mohun Guho(1903) 8 C.W.N. 214 that the Common Manager can bring a suit for declaration oftitle and recovery of possession of immoveable property on behalf of theco-owners, and if he can bring a suit, there is no reason why he should notrepresent them for defending a suit. As he was the party actually in possessionto the exclusion of the co-owners, the suit against him was rightly brought andas that was done within time it was immaterial whether the heirs of some of theco-owners were brought on the record too late for a suit against them. Thequestion of limitation under sec. 22 does not therefore arise. The appeal isdismissed with costs.

.

Choudhry Kirtibash Das and Ors. vs. Umesh Chandra Dutt andOrs. (09.05.1911 - CALHC)