Vested right of suit survives amended limitation rules where compliance was impossible from the outset under the tenancy law.

The Privy Council decision in Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal did not displace the earlier majority view on the Bengal Tenancy Act's amended limitation provisions, because that case concerned a different limitation regime and did not determine the precise issue here. The Court applied the principle that vested rights are not taken away unless Parliament's intention is expressed in clear terms, and held that the amended provisions operated only where compliance was possible. Where the new conditions could not be satisfied from the outset, they did not bar the suit. The plaintiff's vested right of suit therefore survived, and the Munsif's decree was restored with costs throughout.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Privy Council decision in Soni Ram v. Kanhaiya Lal affected the earlier majority ruling on the application of the amended limitation provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act to a suit where compliance with the amended conditions was impossible from the outset, and whether the plaintiff's vested right of suit survived the amendment.

Analysis: The point referred was confined to limitation and the effect of the Privy Council decision on the earlier majority view. The reasoning distinguished the two matters on the footing that the Privy Council case dealt with the general law of limitation under a different enactment, whereas the present controversy concerned the special limitation rule under the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Court applied the principle that legislation is not to be construed as taking away vested rights unless the intention is expressed in clear terms. On that basis, the amended provisions were held to regulate procedure only in cases where compliance was possible, and not to govern suits where compliance with the new conditions was impossible from the beginning. The Court also noted that the Privy Council decision did not directly determine the precise question now before it.

Conclusion: The earlier majority decision was not affected to the extent relevant to the present case, and the amended limitation provisions did not defeat the plaintiff's vested right of suit. The decree of the Munsif was restored with costs throughout.

---