The word ‘perversion’ in Art. 84 means ‘diverting from the true object; a turning from right or truth; a distortion; a misapplication’. In Gulab Singh v. Debendra Kunwar, (AIR 1948 Nag. 20), it has been held that when agricultural land is converted into non-agricultural use the agricultural land is perverted. In Indian Electric Works v. Bhabataran, (AIR 1953 Cal. 390), it has been held that an erection of building on the agricultural land is another form of perversion of agricultural land. In Ziauddin Ahmed v. Jagmohan, (ILR (1950) All. 507), it has been held that constructing a wall on the land left joint after partition and excluding other co-sharers from using it is also perversion.
In Ziauddin Ahmed v. Jagmohan, (ILR (1950) All. 507), it has been held that when there is perversion, it is open to the plaintiff to sue for merely removal of perversion or for any other relief and if he seeks to remove the perversion only, then the Art. 84 will be attracted. But when perversion results in ouster or total dispossession of the plaintiff and the. plaintiff sues for recovery of possession, to such suit Art. 84 will not apply, and either Art. 64 or Art. 65 will apply.
In Gulab Singh v. Debendra, (AIR 1948 Nag. 20), it has been held that the Art. 84 applies to a suit by the landlord for ejection of the tenant on the ground that he has diverted his holding to non-agricultural purpose.
The period of limitation under Art. 84 is two years and it commences when the perversion first becomes known to the plaintiff injured thereby. Therefore, until and unless the plaintiff has knowledge of perversion, the limitation does not commence.