RAM CHANDRA SINGH Vs. JAMUNA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of two suits instituted by the same plaintiffs against the same defendants for recovery of two pieces of land which according to them formed parts of their holding in village Dlgrishuda in the district of Saran, and which were wrongly included by the settlement authorities in two holdings of the defendants. In Second Appeal No. 471 of 1934 the area involved is 3 bighas 14 kathas 6 dhurs which forms part of plot No. 124, being in khata No. 24 of the defendants; while in Second Appeal No. 472 the area involved is 11 bighas 15 kathas 17 dhurs, being plot No. 37 of the village which has been recorded in khata No. 3 of the defendants. Two suits were instituted perhaps on account of the fact that though according to the plaintiffs the lands of both the suits appertained to the same holding of theirs, they were recorded in two different khatas of the defendants. The only question to be decided was whether the presumption of the correctness of the Record of Rights has been rebutted by the plaintiffs; or, in other words, whether they proved that the lands, the subject matter of the two suits, were parts of their holding. The trial Court decreed both the suits, but the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal by the defendants has dismissed them. The plaintiffs have preferred these two second appeals.

(2.) IN my opinion, no question of law arises in these cases. The trial Court relied upon a certain map and khasra which was prepared for purposes of assessment of rent by the landlord, the Maharaja of Dumraon. The learned Subordinate Judge for reasons which cannot be said to be unsound or contrary to law, has declined to act upon them. Then in order to decide whether the plots in suit correspond to the particular plots of the khasra of the Raj the learned Munsif had relied upon the Commissioner's report. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the Commissioner's report not being based upon any fixed point and the lands being situated in diara, his identification of the disputed lands with certain plots of the khasra of the Raj could not be relied upon. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants has, however, contended that the learned Subordinate Judge has ignored a number of documents. I do not think so. The documents referred to are either of the landlord's sarishta and are based upon the khasra and the map which the learned Subordinate Judge has not considered fit to rely upon, or they are the papers relating to the entry of the plaintiffs names in the earlier stages of the settlement operations and cannot in any way override the final entry made in the Record of Rights. IN my opinion the appeals are concluded by the findings of fact and I dismiss them with costs.