WILLIAM GRAHAM Vs. PHANINDRA NATH MITTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs claimed a plot of land roughly thirteen kotas in area in Kidderpore, suburb of Calcutta. The plaintiffs derived their title in the following way. At the beginning of the last century the Government constructed a new road in that locality. A survey was made in 1800 and again in 1801 for the purpose of assessing the compensation to be awarded to the persons from whom the lands for the road were taken. It appears that certain side-lands, which had been taken and might subsequently be required for the purposes of the road, were then noted as dar-i-pin lands: the lands which had been taken and which lay outside these dar-i-pin lands were noted as be-darkari or surplus lands and these latter surplus lands were settled with former holders under lakheraj sanads. In 1810 the plaintiffs ancestor Ram Bhadra Mitra received such a sanad (Exhibit 11) in respect of seven kotas of this surplus land. In order apparently to regularise these settlements and to assess rent for land improperly held, a fresh purvey was undertaken with the result that, in 1837 the heirs of Ram Bhadra Mitra received a notice to the effect that they had been found in possession of 9 kotas 9 chittaks 10 gundas of land and were asked to prove their title to it. The heirs of Ram Bhadra Mitra were invited to take settlement ,of the excess land found in their possession. In 1840, however, there appears to have been yet another survey and measurement by an amin, Kalipada Chatterjee. The Board of Revenue were not satisfied and directed yet another survey. This was carried out by a Deputy Collector, Radha Nath Gangully in 1846. He found the heirs of Ram Bhadra Mitra in possession of eight kotas 7 chittaks 12 gundas in two plots which were numbered 168 and 169 (Exhibit 8c). The Board of Revenue however, eventually decided that no rent could reasonably be demanded for any of the excess lands reported to be in possession of tenants. The heirs of Ram Bhadra Mitra therefore remained in possession of their two plots Nos. 168 and 169 rent free as before. The plaintiffs claim, and we think reasonably, that their possession of plots Nos. 168 and 169 can be related back to the sanad granted to their ancestor Ram Bhadra Mitra in 1810 (Exhibit 11). It is not disputed that the plaintiffs are the heirs of Ram Bhadra Mitra, the grantee of that sanad.

(2.) The defendants do not now contest the facts above set forth, except to somewhat faintly suggest that the connection between the sanad of 1810 and the plots Nos. 168 and 169 had not been made out. We are satisfied, however that the connection has been made out. The questions for our determination, therefore are: First, whether the land which has been decreed to the plaintiffs has been properly identified with the plots Nos. 168 and 169 above referred to and secondly whether the plaintiffs have been in possession within 12 years of the suit?

(3.) It will be observed that 13 kotas were claimed in the plaint. But as the case was put before us the plaintiffs did not claim more than the land which had been identified with the said plots Nos. 168 and 169.