RAMZAN MOMIN Vs. DASRATH RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are brought by Ramzan Momin and others from the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga declaring that the land in dispute has been used as a burial ground for Moslems from time immemorial but the Moslems have no right to cut the trees or bamboo clumps or to graze their cattle thereon.

(2.) The dispute relates to plots 10548 and 10576 of khata Nos. 688 and 1088 in village Narauch Behari, touzi No. 6424. In the year 1940, communal trouble arose and in consequence proceedings under Section 144 and Section 145, Cr. P. C. were initiated. The Magistrate held as a result of his enquiry that there were graves over the entire plot 10576 and over 9 kathas and 19 dhurs of plot 10548. As regards 1 1/2 kathas of plot 10548, the Magistrate found that Dasrath Raut was in possession. In title suit No. 160 of 1943 Dasrath Raut and others (hereinafter described as plaintiffs) therefore claimed plot 10548 as having been acquired by purchase from the recorded tenants. As regards plot 10576, plaintiffs alleged that they were in possession as next reversioner of Halkhori, the recorded tenant, Ramzan Momin and others (hereinafter described as defendants) claimed the plots as graveyard of Mohammadans. In title suit 9 of 1944, the defendants sought a declaration that the portion of 1 1/2 kathas of plot 10548 was the graveyard and there was prayer also for removal of certain structures which Dasrath Raut had wrongfully erected. In title suit 160 of 1943, the Munsif held upon a consideration of the evidence adduced that Mohammadans had a right to use the land as graveyard. The Munsif however found that the plaintiff's had title and accordingly declared their title and possession subject to the use of the land by the defendants as graveyard. The Munsif further held that the defendants had no right to cut the trees or the clumps nor had they any right to graze cattle on the land. In title suit 9 of 1944 with respect to 1 1/2 kathas of plot 10548 the Munsif held that the Mohammadans had failed to prove their possession within the statutory period and hence dismissed the suit.

(3.) The parties preferred appeals against the decision of the Munsif. The Subordinate Judge upheld the finding of the Munsif in title suit 160 of 1943 that the Mohammadans had been using the land as graveyard from time immemorial and had acquired a right to use it as such. He however negatived the claim of the Mohammadans that they had planted the trees and bamboo clumps or that they were entitled to the use thereof. He accordingly dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendants. As regards title suit No. 9 of 1944, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the Mohammadans bad established right to use the land as graveyard. He accordingly allowed the appeal and granted a declaration to that effect.