NITA RAM Vs. VASDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which, the regular second appeal, filed by Vasdev and others, was accepted and the judgment of the lower appellate Court was set aside, which was directed to rehear the parties, give a decision on ground No. 7 taken before it and then give a decision on the light of the observations made by the Single Judge.

(2.) Shorn off details, the facts may, briefly, be stated as under :-

(3.) From the above, it is clear that whereas the Shamilat of Patti Thakaran more or less remained the same and was not adversely affected by the change of the course of the river, the Shamilat of Patti Brahmanan was reduced considerably in 1907-08 and even in 1940-41 it was far less than what it was originally in 1892-93. There was further reduction in 1963-64 and 1968-69. In 1940-41, however, Khasra Nos. 1025, 1026 and 1027 emerged out of the river due to a gradual change of its course. From the plan that has been put on the record it appears that by the change of the river the original Shamilat of Patti Brahmanan went to the other side of the river to an opposite village in U. P., but, adjoining Khasra No. 1024, which was part of the Shamilat of Patti Brahmanan, the river left an area which was indicated by Khasra Nos. 1025, 1026 and 1027. Similarly some other, land is stated to have emerged out of the river in 1960-61 'and was indicated in Khasra Nos. 993, 994, 995 and 999, but, according, to the finding of the trial Court, these have not been traced and we are not, therefore, concerned with the same. In the year 1963-64 while some more of the old land was lost, further land adjoining Khasra No. 1027 emerged and was indicated by Khasra Nos. 1028 to 1033. In the revenue record mutations were entered with regard to these Khasra numbers jointly in the names of the two Pattis.