ADU MANDAL Vs. HIRA LAL MISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiffs have been successful in both the Courts below and the defendants have thereupon preferred this second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs case was that the land in suit appertained to a jama which they held under certain zemindar called the Mitras, that they had leased out the land to one Sonatan and that Sonatan had been dispossessed by the defendants in 1919. The defence, on the other hand, was that the land appertained to a jama of the defendants themselves which they held under certain zemindars called the Hatbaria zemindars.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge in concurrence with the trial Court found that the plaintiffs case that the land appertained to their jama under the Mitras, that the same had been leased out to Sonatan and that Sonatan had been dispossessed by the defendants had been made out. He came to this conclusion on a consideration of the evidence that there is on the record. This conclusion unquestionably is a conclusion on a question of fact.