SM KUMUDA KUMARI DASI Vs. DILSOOK ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of four suits brought by the plaintiff to eject certain persons as being tenant-at-will holding over after notices to quit. The plaintiff's case is that the lands in these suits are niskar lands of one Gopal Chandra, Mitra and that they have come into the plaintiff's possession by various deeds of transfer. But they are homestead lauds in which the defendants had no permanent right and, therefore, notices were served on them to quit and as the defendants have not removed, these suits have been brought. The defence is that these lands are not niskar lands at all but are mal lands of the Dighapatia Raj and are held at present under Kumar Sarat Kumar Roy of Dighapatia by the defendants as tenants.

(2.) The first Court gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff for ejectment and for certain other reliefs. The Subordinate Judge in a most elaborate judgment has confirmed the decision of the Munsif as to ejectment, confirming, but varying his order in respect of back rent claimed. In appeal to this Court three points are taken.

(3.) The first point which I would take up is, however, the only material one in this appeal. It appears that the learned Subordinate Judge came to his findings on a consideration of a very large amount of evidence, and among that mass of evidence which he considered were two Exs. 13 and 22. Ex. 13 was a kobala by which certain lands to the south of the lands now in's it were purchased by one of the predecessors of the plaintiff from the widow and the son of Debendra Sarkar and in that document the disputed land is described as belonging to Gopal Mitter. Similarly by Ex. 22 which is also a kobala and dated 10 June 1908 one Rameswar Khemaka purchased lands on the boundary of the disputed lands and there the disputed land is described as Gopal's niskar. Rameswar is examined in the case and he speaks of the lands he purchased as being adjacent to and bordering on the lands in suit; he says tint the land in suit is Gopal Mitter's and he also supports his evidence by referring to his title deeds, his vendor being dead.