Attachment interrupts adverse possession, defective representation may not vitiate a rent decree, and fictitious tenancies need proof of real possession.

Attachment of property in criminal process places it in legal custody and interrupts adverse possession, so limitation does not run against the true owner during the attachment period. A rent decree will not be treated as invalid merely because certain interested persons were imperfectly represented where they had notice of the proceedings, were substantially represented, or no legal defect in the guardian arrangement is shown. Allegations that family-created tenancies were fictitious depend on proof of actual possession, cultivation, and enjoyment; suspicion from low rent or family links is insufficient. An appellate challenge to the identity of land will not ordinarily be reopened without prompt correction of the record and reliable proof of error.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether limitation barred the suit in view of the attachment of the disputed property under criminal process; (ii) whether the rent decree was invalid because certain interested persons were not properly represented in the rent suit; (iii) whether the tenancies set up by the female defendants were real or fictitious; and (iv) whether the identity of the lands in suit with the lands covered by the prior lease and sale certificate could be reopened in appeal.

Issue (i): whether limitation barred the suit in view of the attachment of the disputed property under criminal process.

Analysis: Property attached under the criminal process passes into legal custody, and during the period of attachment the law treats possession as resting with the true owner for the benefit of preservation. As a result, where the wrongdoer was in possession, the attachment interrupts adverse possession and prevents time from running against the rightful owner during the attachment. On the facts, less than twelve years had elapsed between the relevant sale and the attachment, and the plea of limitation could not succeed.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed.

Issue (ii): whether the rent decree was invalid because certain interested persons were not properly represented in the rent suit.

Analysis: The challenge was examined separately for three persons. One was found, on the evidence, to have attained majority though described as a minor, but he had notice of the proceedings and allowed the suit and execution to proceed without challenge. Another was held to have been adequately represented by his certificated guardian in the circumstances of the then applicable procedural code, where no express prohibition existed against such appointment without consent in the same form as later enacted. The third was not shown on the record to have been outside the representation already before the court, and the tenancy was substantially represented by the family members who were parties. The decree was therefore not vitiated on the ground of defective representation.

Conclusion: The rent decree was held to be valid and binding.

Issue (iii): whether the tenancies set up by the female defendants were real or fictitious.

Analysis: The alleged tenancies were supported by suspicion arising from their family character and low rents, but the decisive test was proof of actual possession and enjoyment. The evidence disclosed no satisfactory proof of occupation by the alleged lessees, no supporting testimony from the persons best able to speak, and no account evidence showing genuine cultivation or receipt of profits by them. The court accepted the finding that the tenancies were created to protect the tenure-holders' interests and were not genuine.

Conclusion: The tenancies were held to be fictitious.

Issue (iv): whether the identity of the lands in suit with the lands covered by the prior lease and sale certificate could be reopened in appeal.

Analysis: The trial court recorded an admission that the disputed lands were included in the tenure and in the sale certificate. The appellate court declined to reopen that statement in the absence of any prompt application for correction and in the absence of reliable proof that the trial judge had been misled. Even on merits, the challenge was found unpersuasive.

Conclusion: The issue was not reopened and the appellants failed on this ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiff was sustained in full, and the appellants failed on every substantive ground raised against it.

Ratio Decidendi: During legal custody arising from attachment, adverse possession does not run against the true owner; and a decree will not be disturbed for technical defects in representation where the interested parties had notice and the tenancy was substantially represented on record.

---