PANCHABATI RAMACHANDRA Vs. SATYABHAMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEVERAL witnesses were examined and a large number of documents were brought on record by the parties in support of their respective cases. On an exhaustive consideration of the same, the learned Munsif recorded the following findings: - -

(2.) IN view of these findings, the learned Munsif decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 filed an appeal and the learned Subordinate Judge practically upheld the findings given by the learned Munsif and dismissed the appeal. Regarding possession of the disputed lands, he gave a clear finding to the effect that plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 are in possession of Bharatpur lands (Schedule 'Ga') ever since the death of Sia Sukumari and that defendant No. 1 is possessing the Alikia lands (Sch. 'Kha' only) after the termination of Misc. Case No. 42 of 1958 in his favour and prior to that the plaintiffs were possessing the same. Against that decision, defendant No. 1 has filed the present second appeal,

(3.) THIS principle is recognised in Ismail Ariff v. Mohemad Ghouse, (1893) 20 Ind. App. 99 (PC). Following this decision a learned Single Judge of this Court in Gadadhar Sahu v. Karsanbasta Patel, ILR (1963) Cut 482, a case where the plaintiff brought the suit for permanent injunction not on the basis of title but on that of long possession and the defendants relied upon their title and possession, held -