SURENDEA NARAIN SINHA Vs. HARI MOHAN MISSER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The reasons assigned by the learned Scb-Judge for allowing the defendants to retain possession of the barari lands to the exclusion of the plaintiff appear to us to be threefold. First, that there was no ouster or dispossession of the plaintiff; second, that there was acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff; and third, the defendants "grodualy improved the land by spending some labour and capital and established a bazar and held the annual" Baruni Mela." The Sub Judge has observed" The plaintiff or the defendants 4 to 6 were not in possession at the time and it was open to the defendant No. 1 to hold it, Here there was no forcible dispossession of any cosharer, for the land was Naya Barari or newly formed laud." "No suit was brought by the plaintiff for this bnrari land, though he hastened to bring the injunction suit for stoppage of the erection of the buildings for the Manoharpur factory, and for a period of seven years he by his silence tacitly acquiesced in all that the defendant No. 1 did to improve the land at the expense of labour and capital." "Equity must now help the defendant, who was not a trespasser from the beginning, because the land having newly reformed was not in actual and constructive possession of any cosharer." In arriving at these conclusions the learned Sub-Judge relied on the principle of law enunciated in the Privy Council case of Watson & Co. V/s. Earn Chund Dutt (1890) I.L.R. 18 Calc. 10 : L.R. 17 I.A. 110, which principle he says was again approved in the Privy Council case of Lxchmeswar Singh v. Munowar Hussem (1891) I.L.R. 19 Calc. 253 : L.R. 19 I.A. 48 and was followed in the case of Madan Mohun Shaha V/s. Rajah Ali (1900) I.L.R. 28 Calc. 223. In the course of the arguments before us reference has also been made to the cases of Bhairon Rai V/s. Saran Rai (1904) I.L.R. 26 All. 588 and Jagannath Singh V/s. Jainath Singh (1904) I.L.R. 27 All. 88.

(2.) We are unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge in the reasons stated by him or in his application of the principles of law referred to by him to the facts and circumstances of the present case. We find that the lands were not waste or derelict lands, but that they were actually taken possession of and cultivated by the two persons named above, Raman and Banshi, as implied tenants of all the cosharers, to whom they were bound to pay rent. But even if it were not so we are not prepared to hold that, whenever new lands are formed by accretion to an old estate it is open to any cosharer of the estate, who appears first on the field, to grab possession of the land and hold it either as his kumat or by settling tenants thereon to the permanent exclusion of all the other cosharers. Such a principle would be subversive of the rights of joint owners and would, in the large alluvial tracts of Bengal, lead to frequent disturbances of the peace. In this very case the defendants in paragraph 9 of their written statement admit that in the year 1308 BS., which was the second year of the mela, "there was violent opposition made on the part of the plaintiff by proceedings taken in Court as well as by armed resistance offered at the site of the mela itself." The Lower Court has observed that in 1308 (1901) the plaintiff "for the first time attempted to collect his share of the fees and tolls with the aid of the Police." With reference to this it may be Observed that the bazar and the mela were started by the defendants only in 1307 (1900). Up to the year 1903 the defendants were contesting the plaintiff's suit for joint possession of the ijmali lands in Mania hairpur, on which the defendants had commenced to build a rival factory and for a permanent injunction restraining them from the building of such factory. The judgment of the High Court decreeing the plaintiffs suit in appeal is dated the 1 June 1903, and the present suit was instituted on the 14 April 1903. As stated above the plaintiff had in 1901 asserted his light to collect his share of the fees of the mela. The injunction suit promptly brought by the plaintiff was a protest against the plan of campaign adopted by the defendants. The attempted erection of a rival factory at Manoharpur, and the seizure of (he karari and barari lands in the adjoining village of Manihari were parts of the same plan of campaign, which had for its object an invasion of the plaintiff's rights. We fail to see therefore that there was any acquiescence in the legal acceptation of the term, or that any equity crises in favour of the defendants.

(3.) As regards the bazar it appears that there are no permanent structures of any sort and as has been stated by Ra jani Kant Dass, defence witness No. 1, "The bazar is held near the steamer ghat; when the steamer ghat is shifted, (he bazar is also shifted." It is well known that on the Ganges the steamer ghat or landing place has to be shifted both during the season of floods and the dry season; and it appears from paragraph 7 of the written state-inent that the bazar has been shifted many times. If the defendants pad the costs of these removals they also enjoyed the profits and if the plaintiff of tains joint possession, he will have to bear his share of the costs and will be entitled to his share of the profits. The same remarks apply with even greater force to (he annual Baruni Mela. The fair is held on open lands when crops are off the ground and the costs incurred, if any, are for the occasion only. It cannot be said that the defendants improved the lands by spending labour and capital thereon. The clearing of grass and scrub jungle, such as grows on newly formed "chur" lands, is a trifling matter. There is no reliable evidence that the defendants did clear any jungle, and the Subordinate Judge himself has disbelieved the story of reclamation No definite facts have been proved or even alleged in the written statement in support of the allegation that the defendants improved the lands at "the expense of labour and capital." The accounts to which the learned pleader for the respondents referred clearly relate to expenditure on other objects, it having been incurred in, the year 1297 B.S. or ten years before the establishment of the bazar.