RAM NAIN MISIR Vs. DEOKI MISIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal No. 799 of 1921 and Second Appeal No, 1098 of 1921 are plaintiffs appeals arising out of a suit for recovery of possession of certain plots on the basis of a mortgage-deed, dated the 1 of August 1879, against the defendants who were alleged to have been in wrongful possession of them and, in the alternative, for recovery of the amount due together with interest.

(2.) The main plea on behalf of the defendants was that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of these plots within twelve years of the suit and that the defendants had been in possession of them, and, accordingly, the claim was barred by time, The Court of first instance, holding that the plaintiffs had been in possession within twelve years of the suit and that the defendants had not established their adverse possession for more than twelve years, decreed the claim for possession. On appeal, the learned District Judge has reversed that decree. On behalf of the plaintiffs, in second appeal, it is contended that the finding of the learned District Judge that the claim was barred by time, was erroneous.

(3.) It appears that the plots in dispute were mortgaged in the year 1879 by one Shiva Tahal Misra in favour of the father of defendant No. 2 and the father of defendant No. 3, who were the predecessors-in-title of the present plaintiffs. Up to the year 1887 the mortgagees were admittedly in possession of these plots, but in that year the plots were completely submerged under water. Since then, it is now found distinctly by the learned District Judge, that the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title have never had actual possession of the lands in dispute. The lands actually reappeared in the year 1903 at the latest and since then they had been submerged during the rainy season for a few months, and further in the years 1903 and 1916 they had been completely submerged under water by floods. The learned District Judge has also found that the defendants have actually been occupying the lands at times when they were not under water ever since the year 1900, On these findings he was of opinion that the plaintiffs had really been dispossessed of these lands for more than twelve years before the suit, that in any case they must be deemed to have abandoned the holding, and that, therefore, their claim was barred by time.