SHIB CHANDRA BANERJEE Vs. UMESH NATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are preferred by the plaintiff, and they arise from two suits, Nos. 817 and 711, respectively, of the first Court. Those suits and three others, with which we are not concerned, were instituted on the grounds that the lands in suit formed chaukidari chakran lands until they were resumed by Government, that they were then settled by Government with the zemindar by whom they were leased to the plaintiff, and that the defendants are keeping the plaintiff out of possession. The claim was for khas possession, or in the alternative for a declaration that the defendants must pay a fair rent.

(2.) The defence was that the lands were not chakran lands, that in No. 711 the land in suit formed part of a jama of Rs. 11 standing in the name of Sheroo Sekh, and that in No. 817 they formed part of a jama of Rs. 73 odd in the name of Chandra Roy.

(3.) The identity of the lands in suit with certain plots of the land which the Collector purported to resume and settle with the zemindar was proved, and the learned Munsif held that their chakran character was determined finally. He then went on to hold that the defendants had not acquired any right by which they could "resist the plaintiff's prayer for khas possession and accordingly he decreed the suits for possession with mesne profits.