UDAY MANDAL Vs. RAM DURLABH SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by defendants. In the suit from which it arises the plaintiff sought to recover possession on a declaration of his title to five bighas of land. He said he had a share in the Mouzah Diktosh and that the land in suit is part of that village, On the other hand the defendants said that the land belonged to Shyampore. They also pleaded that they had been in possession for more than twelve years and the plaintiff s suit is barred by limitation. Several other points were raised in the case but I do not propose to enter into them.

(2.) The first Court found that the defendants had proved their possession for long over 12 years and also that the land did not lie in the village Diktosh and that the plaintiff bad never had possession.

(3.) The plaintiff then preferred an appeal, and the learned Judge on appeal held that a portion of the land did lie within the village Diktosh. He then proceeded to deal with the point of limitation, and he found that he was in agreement with the Munsif in holding that the evidence which the plaintiff adduced to prove his possession of the land was not at all reliable. But he continues that that fact alone was not sufficient unless the defendants could show that they had held the land adversely for more than 12 years before the institution of the suit. And he concluded that the defendants had not succeeded in proving that.