ABDUL HAMID CHOUDHURI Vs. BROJENDRA KUMAR ROY CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two suits (Nos. 35 and 36) for recovery, of possession of certain lands on declaration of plaintiff's title thereto.

(2.) It appears that Taluk No. 130 of the Mymensingh Collectorate was partitioned in 1261 among the proprietors, and the estate was divided into 14 estates Nos. 6042 to 6054 and 130, out of which Estate No. 6049 was allotted to the predecessors of the plaintiff, and Estates Nos. 6042 and 6052 to the defendants predecessors-in-title. In No. 1265 (1849) a batwara chitta was prepared, and Dag No. 372 was allotted to plaintiff's Estate No. 6049.

(3.) The plaintiffs claimed the lands of both the suits, as being covered by Dag No. 372. Suit No. 35 related to Cadastral Survey Dags Nos. 186 to 195 and 203 but, the plaintiffs by a petition gave up their claim to Dags Nos. 186 to 195 in the Court below and the claim with respect to, those Dags was accordingly dismissed. Dag No. 203 was claimed by the defendants as appertaining to their Estate No. 6052 of which the defendant No. 3 was proprietor of a moiety share. The defendant No. 3 by compromise gave up his 8-annas share in favour of the plaintiffs. The claim, therefore, in Suit No. 35 is now confined to an 8-annas share of Dag No. 203 and is contested by the defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 5 only.