BADULLA HOWLADAR Vs. AMINADDI CHAUKIDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of suits for ejectment, the plaintiffs suing the defendants on the ground alleged that the lands in suit are accretions to their raiyati holding as provided by Bengal Regn. 11 of 1825. The plaintiffs and the defendants are raiyats under the same landlord. The defendants case is, and it is not denied, that they have taken settlement of these areas from the landlord. The substantial question between the parties is whether that settlement can confer a title upon the defendants or whether the plaintiffs are correct in their contention that the title to these lands is with them by reason of the gradual accretion and the provisions of the regulation above mentioned.

(2.) It has bean found by both Courts that the river whence the accretions have come is a shallow navigable river and the bed of it belongs to the proprietors as their private property. In those circumstances, both the lower Courts have found in favour of the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge has gone into the matter at considerable length and, substantially, the result of his conclusions is that the construction of the regulation as laid down in the case of Lopez V/s. Muddun Mohun Thakore [1869] 13 M.I.A. 467 and that application of the decision in the case of Rahimaddi Matabbar V/s. Naimaddi Howladar by a Bench of this Court, show that the regulation is not to be construed in the manner contended for by the present appellants. Clauses 1 and 4, Section 4 of the Regulation are those which are in question.

(3.) Clause 1 of that section is as follows: When land may be gained by gradual accession, whether from the recess of a river or of the sea, it shall be considered an increment to the tenure of the person to whose land or estate it la thus annexed, whether such laud or estate be hold immediately from Government by a Kamindar or other superior landholder, or as a subordinate tenure by any description of under-tenant whatever.