BISTU CHANDRA CHUCKERBUTTY Vs. ISWAR CHANDRA CHUCKERBUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff sued to recover certain lands on the following allegation. He said that the lands were lakhiraj bramatar lands within the defendant's shikmi talook; that they had been created as such lakhiraj by the Raja of Tippera, the zamindar of the talook, in favour of one Pranballab, and that he, plaintiff, partly by inheritance and partly by purchase, had become the possessor of the said lands. The plaintiff then went on to say that, on two certain dates which he specified, the defendant, who was the auction-purchaser, under Act VIII of 1865, B.C., of the under-tenure in which the lands were situated, had ousted him of the lands by causing a certain bamboo to be put up, and a certain demarcation to be made by the peon who went to give the defendant possession of his purchased property. The defendant denied that the tenure in question was a lakhiraj tenure of any kind, and on the issue as to whether or not the disputed land was the plaintiff's lakhiraj property, as alleged by him, the first Court found against the plaintiff, and dismissed his suit.

(2.) The lower appellate Court found the following facts. First of all, the Court found that the tenure in question was not proved to be a lakhiraj tenure created in the manner set up by the plaintiff; and, secondly, the Court found that the talookdar, one Gopinath, whose rights the defendant had purchased at auction, had granted a lakhiraj of the disputed bramatar lands of the talook not to Pranballab, as set up by the plaintiff, but to one Kasinath and, thirdly, the Court found that Kasinath had been for a very long time in possession of the disputed lands by virtue of his "lakhiraj."

(3.) Having found these facts, the lower appellate Court gave the plaintiff a decree not upon his title, but on the ground that he bad been unlawfully dispossessed by the defendant, and that be was therefore unquestionably entitled to get possession until ousted by due course of law.