JAGANNATH MARWARI Vs. CHANDNI BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of the litigation which has resulted in this appeal consists of two parcels of land situated in the Town of Raniganj. The plaintiffs claim an one-fourth share of a leasehold interest in the land created by the Bengal Coal Company, the admitted landlords. The contesting defendants deny the alleged title of the plaintiffs and claim an independent right in themselves in the entire property. The Subordinate Judge has found in favour of the plaintiffs, on the question of title; he has also held that such title was in subsistence at the date of the commencement of the suit and had not been extinguished by adverse possession on the part of the defendants. In this view, the Trial Court has made a decree, for possession upon declaration of title and has further directed partition by metes and bounds. On the present appeal, the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed substantially on two grounds, namely, first, that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the existence at any time of the specific title set up by them; and, secondly, that even it the plaintiffs had such title at some remote period of time, it had been extinguished long before the date of the suit by adverse possession on the part of the defendants, For the determination of the questions in controversy which are closely connected and may be conveniently discussed together, a brief recital of the history of the devolution of the title to the disputed property is essential.

(2.) On the 14 August 1855 the Bengal Coal Company granted a permanent building lease in respect of two plots of land in the Town of Raniganj, at an annual rent of Rs. 24, to one Ram Singh Chaudhuri. There was some controversy in the Court below upon the question, whether the two plots covered by this lease are identical with the two parcels now in dispute. The schedule attached to the lease sets out the boundaries of the two plots, but, as might have been anticipated, the Subordinate Judge found it difficult to identify all the boundaries after the lapse of sixty years; there can, however, be little room for reasonable doubt as to the identity of the land. Ram Singh Chaudhuri continued in possession upon payment of rent to the Bengal Coal Co. till 18(sic)4 when he transferred his lease hold interest to Mangalchand Baldeodas, who took a half share, Jainarain, who took an one fourth share, and Panna Lal, who took the remaining one fourth share. These persons continued in occupation, upon payment of rent to the superior landlords at the rate of Rs. 24 annually for at least a quarter of a century. As there is no indication whatever that they held other lands under the Bengal Goal Co. at the same rate, the Subordinate Judge has in our opinion, correctly held, notwithstanding the difficulty in the identification of boundaries, that the land now in dispute is precisely the same land as is covered by the lease of the 14 August 1835 granted by (he Company.

(3.) We have next to consider the history of the share of Panna Lal which forms the subject matter of this litigation. The relationship of the members of his family is set out in the following genealogical table: