SHEIKH ABDUL HUQ Vs. SHEIKH SUBAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have read the judgment about to be delivered by my learned brother and I agree in it. Herbert Carnduff, J.

(2.) In this case, the plaintiffs sued for the recovery of possession of some 4 bighas of land, which they declared had gradually reformed in the derelict beds of the Baghmati in contiguity to their holding on the bank of that river. Their suit has been decreed, both the Courts below finding that they were entitled to the land as a gradual accretion by virtue of the provisions of Section 4, Sub-section (1) of the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation 1825 (XI of 1825). The defendants have now appealed to this Court.

(3.) For the appellants, Dr. Ghosh has contended, in the first place, that the plaintiff s case was not one of gradual accretion, but rather a case of reformation in situ to which, as ruled by the Judicial Committee in Lopez v. Muddun Mohun Thakoor 13 M.I.A. 467 : 14 W.R. (P.C.) 11; 5 B.L.R. 521 and Ritraj Kunwar v. Sarfaraz Kunwar 32 I.A. 165; 27 A. 655; 15 M.L.J. 349; 2 A.L.J. 623; 7 Bom. L.R. 872, 9 C.W.N. 889 2 C.L.J. 185 : 8 O.C. 293 the provisions referred to could have no application. As to this, it is no doubt, true that the word "reformed" occurs again and again in the plaint with reference to the land in suit; but it is there used, not in conjunction with the phrase in situ or any equivalent thereof, but as indicated above, in connection with the allegation that the laud had "gradually reformed in contiguity to" the land already held by the plaintiffs. I think, then, that this contention must fail.