SAHABUDDIN SARKAR Vs. MOULVI KAFILUDDIN TAPADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif at Chandpur for a declaration of title to and for recovery of possession of a parcel of Char land which is admittedly a part of alluvial lands formed by the recess of the river Meghna towards the east. Their case is that the disputed land is a part of the accretions to C.S. No. 702 while the case of the defendants- respondents is that it is a part of the accretion to C.S. No. 717 belonging to them which lies to the north of the plaintiffs C.S. No. 702.The trial Court determined the question of title on the basis of actual possession of the Char lands after their formation and decreed the suit in part. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 7 appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Tippera. The Subordinate Judge of Tippera who heard the appeal was of opinion that the determination of the question of title to the disputed land depended upon the right method of apportionment of the Char lands between the two rival riparian owners and that the right method was by drawing a line from the point of intersection of the two riparian estates perpendicularly to the course of the river. Following this method he allowed the appeal in part and the decree of the trial Court was varied by him. The plaintiffs appealed to this Court and as this appeal has been dismissed by Mr. Justice Mitter, the present appeal is under Section 15 of the Letters Patent. See 167 Ind. Cas. 130--[Ed.]

(2.) The contention of the appellant is as follows: The trial before the Munsif proceeded on the footing that the rights of the riparian tenants to the accretion depended upon the mode of their actual possession of the Char lands. Since their formation it was the case of both sides before the trial Court that as the Chars began to form, all the riparian tenants of the village including the parties to the present suit extended their possession eastward straight-way in accordance with the directions of the boundary hatails of the respective Asuli lands. It was never disputed that this method of division of all the Char lands in the locality was not in accordance with the local usage or principal of equity and justice. The learned Subordinate Judge was, therefore, wrong in adopting a method for determining the question of title between the parties.

(3.) The above contention of the appellants is supported by tie following passage in the judgment of the trial Court: It is admitted on both sides in this case that as accretion proceeded, all the tenants extended their possession eastward straight-away in accordance with the direction of the boundary hatails of their respective lands in the Asuli.