PANCHANON SARKAR Vs. BASANTA KUMARI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff in the suit) sued for recovery of possession of certain chur lands. His case was that the land in dispute formed part of his zamindari mauza Arara. The land has been washed away some time after the revenue survey and from the year 1310 (October 1903) began to re-form and the plaintiff took possession and remained in possession through a tenant This tenant's holding was sold in execution of a decree for rent and purchased by the plaintiff. When he went to take possession in 1318 (1911) he was resisted by the defendants. Hence the suit which was instituted on the 6 October 1915. The defence was that the land in suit appertained to the defendants mauza chur Lankar, that the plaintiff never possessed than lands. The land bad re-formed 30 years before the date of suit and the defendants had acquired a title by adverse possession.

(2.) The trial Court found that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff had failed to prove that the land had re-formed in 1310: on the contrary they had re-formed 30 years ago and defendants had been in possession all the time. The plaintiff had failed to prove that he had been in possession within 12 years of the date of suit and hence he dismissed the suit.

(3.) On appeal to the District Court the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff had established his right and title to 18 bighas of the disputed land which were a re-formation in situ of. his estate, mauza Arara. He held that the lands were re-formed in 1903 and that it was not established by the evidence that the 18 bighas were re-formed over 12 years before the date of suit. It was for the defendants to produce what evidence they could to show that they had been in possession for 12 years.