BRAJANATH SARMA AND ORS Vs. RAM CHANDRA CHOWDHRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover possession of certain lands by declaration of their title by purchase to those lands, and for reversal of an order passed under section 15, Act XIV of 1859 of date the 25th June 1866. The plaintiffs alleged that, in the year 1911, by two deeds of sale bearing date that year, one Kisto Prasad had sold the lands to them as bramatar, and that they had from that time held the lands as such bramatar, until they were dispossessed by the defendants under color of the Act XIV award above mentioned.

(2.) The defendants pleaded the Statute of Limitation, and averred that the plaintiff's title deeds were forged.

(3.) Both the Courts below have found for the plaintiffs, and one of the defendants now appeals before us specially. His sole ground of appeal is that when the plaintiffs sued for a declaration of right, the lower appellate Court was wrong in law in giving the plaintiffs a decree, without coming to a decision on the question of that right, and he relies on certain decisions of this Court, in Jussoda Dossee v. Sheikh Mahomed Fuckeer (1861) W.R. 367, Ramdhan Chuckerbutty v. Srimati Komal Tara 3 B.L.R.A.C. 99, note, Eckowri Sing v. Hiralal Seal 2 B.L.R.P.C. 4. The issue material to the point disputed before us laid down by the lower appellate Court was this:--"Does the disputed land constitute a rent-free ancestral right of the plaintiffs by purchase or not; and were they in possession thereof accordingly; and were they dispossessed, as alleged." The plaintiffs had relied upon their title deeds of the year 1211, and the lower appellate Court finds that these deeds are not supported by evidence; but the lower appellate Court goes on to say (in its decision, it must be remembered on the issue above quoted) that, "when it is considered that effect has been given to those deeds, they are not doubted in the least; for it has been proved by the evidence of most of the witnesses that the plaintiffs were in enjoyment of the disputed lands for above 12 years on the allegation of purchase, and have been dispossessed since the last 2 or 3 years only; and further on the Court goes on to say that, "even in the absence of documentary proofs, it must be admitted that plaintiffs' long possession creates a right in their favor," and again that, "a right to land may be established by trustworthy oral evidence to the same extent as by documentary proofs."