AHMED HOSSEIN BEPARI Vs. DIGENDRA NARAIN SINGHA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have arisen out of a suit which was commenced on the following allegations:

(2.) That the lands of Taluk No. 1116 of the Dacca Collectorate are owned and possessed jointly by the plaintiffs, the principal defendants and the proforma defendants, the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants having an 8 annas share and the principal defendants the remaining 8 annas share; that a debuttar, a brohoottar and a shikari have been wrongly recorded as interests held under the 16 annas of the Taluk; and that in a partition pending before the Collectorate, the said interests were being treated as such. The plaintiffs as owners of a 5 annas 12 gandas share in the taluk alleged that the said interests had no existence in fact, and that at least none of them was held under the 8 annas share belonging to themselves and to the proforma defendants. The reliefs asked for were several, but for the purposes of this appeal they may be taken to have been the following: (a) A declaration that the record, in so far as it mentioned the said interests as under the 8 annas share of the plaintiffs and of the proforma defendants was wrong, and that the said 8 annas share was free from those interests; and (b) an injunction restraining the principal defendants from claiming such interests.

(3.) The defence of the principal defendants was a denial that there was anything wrong in the record that had been made of the said interests, a plea of limitation, and an objection as regards the maintainability of the suit. The last two matters go together. The Subordinate Judge has found: There is no debuttar, brahmottar or shikmi right under the 8 annas share of the plaintiffs and of the proforma defendants, though there are such rights under the 8 annas share of the principal defendants.