MT LATIFA KHATUN Vs. TOFER ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (After stating the facts his Lordship proceeded.) The substance of: the plaintiffs claim was that Ali Hossain or Abdul Karitn Choudhuri did not take the settlement of the lands of Soh. 1 or possess or pay rent for the same, but that Gholam Ali took it in their names; that if this benami nature of the transaction was not proved, then the Government had no right to settle the said lands with Ali Hossain or Abdul Karim Choudhuri as the lands were accretion to the lands of Schedules 2 and 3 of which Gholarn Ali had already obtained settlement in 1901-02 and 1904-05 respectively; and that the plaintiff having acquired Gholam Ali's interest in the original holding as wall as the Schedules 2 and 3 lands, his title to the lands of Schedule 1 should also be declared and his possession therein confirmed.

(2.) The plaintiff and defendant 12, Abdul Karim Choudhuri, settled the dispute between them on compromise. The defence of the heirs of Ali Hossain was, besides a denial of the plaintiff's title under his purchase, that; Gholam Ali did not take the settlement of the disputed lands in the name of Ali Hossain, that Ali Hossain had taken settlement from Government on his own account and had been in possession for upwards of 20 years. The position taken up by the Secretary of State was that the lands of Schedule 1 were accretion to those of Schedule 3 which again were accretions to the lands of Schedule 2, but that, when the lands of Schedules 2 and 3 were settled, the settlements were not made of all the lands that had accreted, but because an intervening strip of land between the lands settled and the river was left unsettled, Gholam Ali was not entitled to have the settlement of the land of Schedule 1, and consequently the plaintiffs had no title to the same.

(3.) The Munsif decreed the suit. Prom this decision appeals were preferred by some of the heirs of Ali Hossain and by the Secretary of State for India in Council. The Subordinate Judge who lealt with the appeals, allowed the same, and reversing the Munsif's decision dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have thereupon appealed to this Court.