NANDA LAL ROY Vs. PRAMATHA NATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four main questions fall for determination in this appeal by the plaintiffs: (1) whether the plaintiffs have established their title to the fishery known as the Bikrampur Jalkar in the tidal and navigable river Pudma; (2) what is the boundary between their jalkar and the respondents (defendants 1 to 5) fishery known as the Mukundia Jalkar; (3) whether the plaintiffs have lost their title by adverse possession of the defendants to the portion of the fishery now in dispute and (4) what is the legal effect of the proceedings of 1816, 1843 and of the award of the arbitrator in certain suits instituted in 1909. The principal contestants to the appeal are Raja Janaki Nath Roy, a gentleman possessed of considerable wealth and his nephews.

(2.) In this action plaintiffs claimed a decree for recovery of joint possession with their co- sharers to the extent of their three annas two gandas one kara one kranti one danti shares in that portion of the fishery which is described in Sch. 2 to the plaint after declaration of their title as proprietors to the fishery described in Sch. 1 to the plaint of which the property in Sch. 2 is claimed as forming a part. The plaintiffs also rested their claim to the disputed portion of the fishery on the ground of adverse possession for more than the statutory period of 12 years. In the alternative they claimed that if the right to the disputed fishery (jalkar) be not established on the ground of their title as proprietors or on the ground of adverse possession they may be given a declaration that they have acquired a right of easement and prescriptive right on the ground that they have been holding possession of the said right in succession to their predecessors for upwards of 60 years openly, peaceably, uninterruptedly and as of right.

(3.) They also claimed a decree for the sum of Rs. 536-10-3 as their share of the profits of the disputed jalkar during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C, which had been withdrawn by the defendants and also claimed tentatively the sum of Rs. 1,600 as mesne profits. The plaintiffs failed before the Subordinate Judge of Dacca. Hence this appeal to this Court.