ANDORU AKANDA Vs. NASIR AKANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for decision in these second appeals is whether the first part of Section 1 of Regulation XI of 1825 applies to land forming from the bed of a small and shallow river where bed is recognized as the property of an individual.

(2.) The learned Munsif found that it did; in appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has expressed the contrary opinion.

(3.) The form in which the question presents itself in the present case is that the appellants are the owners of occupancy holdings to which holdings the disputed land has accreted: the respondents are lessees of the zamindar to whom the bed of the river belongs. It is important to notice that the appellants do not pretend that the land in dispute was at any time part of their holdings before its recent emergence. The principle, then, which applies to the case is the same as that-which would apply in a contest between the recognized proprietor" of the bed of the river on the one hand and a different riparian proprietor.