BEPIN BEHARI DANDAPAT Vs. TRAILOKYA NATH DANDAPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal defendants are the appellants in this appeal. The appeal arises out of a, suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession. The suit has been decreed by both the Courts below. Plaintiffs case shortly stated was that the land in suit had been purchased by them under a kabala, dated 1294, from a person who in his turn had made a purchase in respect of it in 1290. The plaintiffs alleged that after their purchase they were in possession of the land through a tenant named Haru, that thereafter they were in possession thereof through another tenant named Mahipati, and that the latter surrendered in 1317 corresponding to 1910 and that since then they were in khas possession. In 1916 the lands were recorded in the Record of Rights in the names of the defendants and as the plaintiffs title and possession were thereby jeopardised they instituted the present suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession.

(2.) In support of the plaintiffs case, amongst other documents, the plaintiffs relied upon the kabala of their purchase, dated 1294, that of their vendors purchase, dated 1290, a plaint and a decree in suit for rent against their tenant Haru, dated 1897, a chitta of the Irrigation Department showing Mahipati's possession before and during 1915 16, receipts and copies of Registers of the Irrigation Department showing payment of water-rate for this land as well as other lands, collection papers, some counterfoils of rent receipts and a kabuliyat dated 1922, which the plaintiffs had executed in favour of the Irrigation Department for payment of Irrigation charges. On a consideration of these documents as well as of the other evidence, oral and documentary, that was adduced in the case the Courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had title to the land in suit and were also in possession of it.

(3.) The learned District Judge has held that the boundaries given in the kabalas of 1290 and 1294 may be reconciled on three sides, that the plaint and decree of the rent suit of 1897 give the same bounds aries and that none of the other documentary evidence with the exception of the kabuliyat of 1922 gives the boundaries of the land they deal with. He does not appear to have been very much impressed by the oral evidence by which plaintiffs possession through tenants was sought to be proved. He relied a good deal upon the kabuliyat of 1922, which gives the boundaries of the land as they exist at present, and contains the signature of the defendant No. 1, as an attesting witness. On the whole he accepted the plaintiffs case as true and affirmed the decree of the trial Court decreeing the plaintiffs suit.