PUNIT RAI Vs. MOHAMMAD MAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise out of the same suit. The plaintiff is the Secretary of an institution known as Yatimkhana Anjuman Khadimul Islam, Patna City. He instituted the suit, out of which these two appeals arise, on behalf of the institution, for declaration of its title to and for confirmation or, in the alternative, recovery of posession over about 10 Bighas of land described at the foot of the plaint by letters A, B, C and D. The claim of the plaintiff is that municipal plots Nos. 407, 408, 409 and 410 of ward No. 26, within Patna Municipal Corporation, having an area of 1 Bigha 5 Kathas, belonged to it, and the suit land, measuring about 10 bighas, lying adjacent north of these plots, has vested in it as having been annexed to them by gradual and imperceptible accretion. As the defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had to institute the suit for the reliefs stated above. The suit was mainly contested by defendants 11 to 13 and defendants 14 and 15. Both sets of the defendants filed separate written statements, but their pleas in defence were practically the same. Their picas, so far as are relevant for the purposes of these appeals, are that the lands had come out of the water suddenly and it was a case of reformation in situ, and that the lands lie in the district of Muzaffarpur and the Civil Court a Patna had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Courts below rejected these pleas and, accepting the case of the plaintiff, decreed the suit. At the trial it was further contended by these defendants that the plaintiff had no title to plots Nos. 407 to 410 and, therefore, the plaintiff did not acquire any title over the suit land. The Courts below held that the plaintiff had title over plots Nos. 408 to 410 and a portion of plot No. 407. They therefore, held that the plaintiff was entitled to the accreted land. Defendant No. 14 preferred a second appeal in this Court, being Second Appeal No. 34 of 1956 and defendants 11 and 12 filed a separate second appeal, being Second No. 54 of 1956. Second Appeal No. 34 of 1956 was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and was dismissed on the 18th February, 1959. Leave for appeal under the Letters Patent was granted, and defendant No. 14 has filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 43 of 1959. Second Appeal No. 54 of 1956 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 43 of 1959 have, therefore, been heard together as the questions at issue in both the cases are the same, and this judgment will govern them both.

(2.) Mr. Sharma has appeared for the appellant in L. P. A. No. 43 of 1959 and Mr. T. K. Prasad has appeared for the appellants in Second Appeal No. 54 of 1956. Both of them have advanced separate arguments, but the points raised in their arguments are practically the same.

(3.) Three points have been raised by Counsel for the appellants in support of their case. They are: (1) The plaintiff has not established its title to a portion of plot No. 407 and. as such, the lands accreting to that portion of plot No. 407 could not belong to the plaintiff. (2) The Patna Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. (3) To the north of plot Nos, 407 to 410, there is a Pushta wall and, as such, the alluviated lands could not be said to have accreted to the lands lying to the south of the Pushta wall.