RANI HEMANTA KUMARI Vs. MAHARAJA JAGADINDRA NATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This dispute relates to 497 begahs of land, adjacent to the Brahmaputra river. This land was, at the date of the plaint, viz., 3rd October 1893, in the possession of the first respondent (who will be referred to as "the respondent"), and the suit was in substance one of ejectment at the instance of the appellant.

(2.) The earliest and not the least material fact in the case is a decree of 27th March 1835, which is the basis of the appellant s case; but the complete elucidation of her title was effected by a judicial order of 14th March 1859 which affirmed the correctness of a Thakmap made in 1853. The Order of 1859 and the map of 1853 conclusively establish that the appellant s title includes the whole of the land in dispute.

(3.) The case of the respondent is rested on possession. Even on the showing of the appellant, the respondent at the date of the plaint had been in possession for eleven years, and the respondent says for twelve years (the period of limitation), and longer. The difference between the admitted possession and the period of limitation being so narrow (one year) the question of onus is important; and their Lordships adhere to the principle stated in the Privy Council case cited by the learned Judge in the High Court Mohima Chundar Mozoomdar v. Mohesh Ghundar Neogi (1888) 16 I.A. 23, and hold that it is for the appellant, as plaintiff in a suit of ejectment, to prove possession prior to the dispossession which she alleges. At the same time, their Lordships consider that in this question of evidence the initial fact of the appellant s title comes to her aid, with greater or less force according to the circumstances established in evidence.