KRISHNA GOVINDA JAWADAR Vs. BANKA BEHARI SHAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in an action in ejectment. As regards some of the facts, there can be no doubt. The only matter which is in dispute between the parties is as regards possession from 1882 up to the admitted date of dispossession in 1894. The land, a half of which is in dispute between the parties, is the dried bed of a river called How lie which adjoins the asli mehal called Dihi Nagorebaker and others. The chur itself was called chur Ramnagore. It was along with the asli, mehal at one time the property of Gopal Chunder Ghose, Jadu Nath and Keshab. Gopal Chunder had an eight-anna share and Jadu Nath and Keshab had the other eight annas. When the chur appeared on account of the recession of the river, it was taken possession of by Government. It is alleged that the Government took possession in or about the year 1879. The Government claimed it as the bed of a river and not reformation in site of, or accretion to, the village held by Gopal and his co-sharers. The Government made two settlements. One of these settlements lasted from 1882 to 1891 and the other from 1892 to 1902. But, before the expiry of the second settlement, events took place which prevented its full operation. When the first settlement was in force, a lease was given by two persons of the name of Girija Prosanna and Rajani Sundari to the first defendant in this suit. They were the lessees under one of the proprietors. The lease is dated the 28 September 1882, and it recited that the demised premises were an eight annas share of the mehal deducting the land in the bed of the dried up river Howlia, which was then under settlement by Government. It is clear, therefore, from the lease that the land of which possession had been taken, or had been attempted to be taken, by the Government, was excluded from the lease. That is the land which is in dispute in the present case.

(2.) The son of Gopal Ghose who was one of the proprietors instituted a suit against the Government for recovery of a half share of the chur. The suit was decreed on the 31 January 1891 and the plaintiffs took actual possession by enforcing the decree on the 9 May 1892. It appears from the finding arrived at by the lower Appellate Court that the possession taken was actual, and not merely symbolical. After the delivery of possession in respect to this half share Jadu Nath and Keshab served a notice on the Government with respect to the possession of the other half share. The notice was not followed up by a suit. The matter was compromised and, on the 15 December 1892, the Government gave up possession in favour of Jadu Nath and Kashab.

(3.) Before, however, these transactions took place and, in fact, before the re-appearance of the land which was the subject-matter of the dispute between the proprietors and the Government, Girija Prosanna and Rajani Sundari had obtained a lease of the other half share from the proprietors or their lessees. This lease is dated the 30 July 1878. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are sub-lessees in respect to this share and their sub-lease is dated the 4 March 1895.