MATIWOR RASUK (RASUL IN VAKALUTNANA) ALIKAR RASUL; MATIWOR RASUL Vs. DHANU MOLLA, AND AFTER HIS DEATH HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES; HOSENUDDI; BANGO BEPARI AND ON HIS DEATH HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES; SUNDER ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of khas possession of certain parcels of land on declaration of their title thereto. The two suits bore Nos, 2284 and 2490 of 1913. In each suit the subject-matter consisted of four plots or parcels of land. Both the Courts below have found that in Suit No. 2490 plots Nos. 2 to 4 and part of plot No. 1 and in Suit No. 2284 plots Nos. 2 and 4 and parts of plots Nos. 1 and 3 appertain to plaintiff s state Dighirpar. That is a finding of fact which has not been challenged before us.

(2.) The next question that arose in the suits was the question of limitation. In the Court of first instance it was held that, in respect of the plots over which the plaintiffs title bad be in established, there was no bar of limitation, the finding of the Court of first instance being that the adverse possession of the defendants bad begun in the 1309. In the Court of first appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation except as regards part of plot No. 1 in Suit No. 2490 and plot No. 4 in Suit No. 2284. As regards the other plots the Subordinate Judge has found that the defendants have been in adverse possession from the year 1306. In coming to his finding on this question of adverse possession the learned Subordinate Judge relied on the batwara map and chittas prepared under Section 54 of the Estates Partition, Act VIII of 1876, when the estate of the defendants was under partition by the Revenue Authorities first in 1879 and again in 1893. He alsO relied upon the collection papers of the Zemindar defendants which show that the tenant defendants were tenants under Hem Chandra Chowdury, the owner of the estate, contiguous to Dighirpar- -from at least 1298. He has also relied upon two Kubuliyats, Exhibits F and G, add a conveyance, Exhibit H.

(3.) The contentions before us are, first, that the Collectorate partition maps and chittas are not admissible in evidence and, secondly, that the learned Subordinate Judge has failed to take into consideration the oral evidence adduced by the parties.