DAYANIDHI DHAR Vs. BRUNDABAN DHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT -1 is the Appellant. The Plaintiff has filed a suit for partition of the schedules a, b, c and d properties, alleging that he is entitled to three and as share in the same. One Ghanashyam had four sons, Nilakantha, Ramchandra, Narayan and Shridhar. The Plaintiffs are Narayan and his sons, Nilakantha's representative are the 1st and the second Defendants. Defendant -3 is the son of Rama Chandra and Defendant -4 is the son of Sridhar. Defendant -1 is the Lambardar of the Village.

(2.) THE Defendant -1 contended that he acquired the property in his own right and that the suit is barred by adverse possession. The trial, court decreed the Plaintiff's suit with regard to schedules A and D properties, but disbursed the same with regard to schedules Band C properties. The Defendant -l appealed against the decree directing partition of schedules A and D properties and there was no appeal by the Plaintiff regarding schedules Band C properties. The appeal was dismissed.

(3.) WITH regard to D schedule properties Mr. Misra contends that even on the assumption that these properties were reclaimed in 1945 by the first Defendant and that he is not entitled to claim adverse possession to these properties, yet these properties cannot he made the subject matter of partition on account of the fact that the properties in schedule D, which are admittedly go char lands, vest in the Government and cannot be reclaimed by anyone without the permission of the Deputy Commissioner, and as such the first Defendant according' to his contention, is in possession of those properties wrongfully and the Government may at any time evict him from out of the land, and the properties which are in his possession by an unauthorised act of his cannot be made the subject -matter of a suit for partition by his other co -shearers.