HARDUT RAY CHAMARIA AND CO Vs. UJIR SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These tour appeals arise out of as many suits that were instituted by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and recovery of possession after demolition of certain huts which stand on the land. The Courts below have found is favour of the plaintiffs on the question of title but being of opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to have their possession within 12 years before suit have dismissed the said suits.

(2.) The arguments that have been advanced before us on behalf of the plaintiffs who are the appellants in these appeals are directed against the finding of the Subordinate Judge to the effect that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession within 12 years and against the reasoning upon which that finding is based. Beading the judgment of the Subordinate Judge it would appear that he, after discussion of a very large number of decisions upon Art. 142 and Art. 144, Lim. Act, came to the conclusion that in the present suits it was Art. 142, that was applicable and that the plaintiffs were to prove their possession of the particular plots with which the suits ware concerned within 12 years before the institution thereof. He then proceeds to take into consideration the evidence in the ease and records two observations which I think it better to quote in his own words. He says thus: It was argued that the defence evidence of possession for more than 12 years is quite unsatisfactory, but the weakness of defendant's evidence cannot go to make the plaintiff's evidence strong. It is true that the evidence regarding possession for more than 12 years is not vary satisfactory.

(3.) He says also: Event in spite of the unsatisfactory nature of defendant's evidence I must say that it is far hotter, than that of plaintiff's evidence and on comparison the defendant's evidence becomes acceptable.