JURAWAN SINGH Vs. RAMSAREKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are by some of the defendants in two suits which were instituted by a large number of plaintiffs for declaration of their title in respect of different parcels of lands which they claimed as their occupancy holdings in mauza Fatehpur Shahbazpur, bearing tauzi No. 2602 in the district of Muzaffarpur. Appeal No. 43 of 1927 arises out of title suit No. 28 of 1924, while Appeal No. 73 of 1929 arises out of title suit No. 3 of 1927, the first suit having been filed in June 1924 and the second in January 1927. The suits were tried by two different Subordinate Judges, but on the application of the defendants-appellants in both these appeals, to which the respondents made no objection, it was ordered that these appeals should be heard one after the other. There are many points common to both the appeals and, although we have heard the appeals separately one after the other, it will be convenient to deal with the points raised in both the appeals in one judgment.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs in both the suits was that the lands in dispute formed their occupancy holdings and that they or their ancestors and predecessors in title were recorded in the record-of-rights as occupancy raiyats of the lands claimed by them. The village Fatehpur Shahbazpur lies between two rivers, the river Gandak being on the north of the mauza and the river Ganges to the south of it, and lands of the village frequently go under water. The defendants-first-party in both the suits were also occupancy raiyats in respect of several holdings in the village. The plaintiffs or some of them and the defendants first party acquired proprietary interests in the village by purchase from the previous proprietors under whom they originally held the lands as raiyats. The purchases were made on different dates and by different instruments. The defendants second party are also some of the purchasers of the proprietary . interest but they had no raiyati holding in the village before the acquisition of their proprietary interest.

(3.) It appears that some time in 1901 or 1902 a large area of land in the north of the village went under water and remained submerged for about 13 or 14 years. About 400 bighas of the submerged lands re-appeared in 1914 and about 1,000 bighas in 1918. The two suits relate to portions of these lands which the plaintiffs claim as their old occupancy holdings to which they are entitled as raiyats. After the re-appearance of the first 400 bighias there was a dispute as regards possession and a proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code was started, which resulted in an order made on the 15 December 1916. whereby the Magistrate attached the whole of the 400 bighas under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, being unable to find which of the parties was in actual possession of the land, and the Collector was appointed as the receiver. Similarly, disputes arose as regards the 1000 bighas of land which had reappeared in 1918 and proceedings were again started under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which resulted in an order, dated the 8 July 1931; by this order 200 bighas was declared to be in possession of the defendants-first-party as landlords, while the remaining 800 bighas was attached under Section 146 of the Code. Thus 1400 bighas of land formed the subject matter of the two proceedings; and the plaintiffs in the two suits claim portions of each of the three blocks of lands, viz., the blocks of 400 bighas attached in 1916, the 200 bighas declared to be in possession of the defendants-first-party, and the 800 bighas attached in 1921.