SITANATH SAHA Vs. MONORANJAN ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the decision of the First Court of the Sub. ordinate Judge of Faridpur, dated 20 March 1934. A plot of char land measuring 1058.24 acres was formed in the bed of the river Padma in Mouza Biswanathpur, Khalpur, Bharasimul in P.S. Sadarpur and char Bhadrashin. This char land was attached by the Sadar S.D.C. of Faridpur under Section 3 (1), Bengal Alluvial Land Act (Act 5 of 1920), on 10 January 1929. This attached area included some lands which were previously attached on 8 November 1926 under the same Act, but were subsequently released from attachment under the order of the Board of Eeve- nue. The Collector thereupon excluded this released land from the attached area. The remaining land was then surveyed and a map was prepared under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Collector then made a reference under Section 5(1) of the Act, to the District Judge of Faridpur for a decision as to what persons had title to the lands attached. The District Judge registered this reference as a suit and transferred it to the First Court of the Subordinate Judge at Farid-pur for disposal. The usual notices were then served on the claimants whose names were mentioned in the Order of Reference and general notices were served under the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act. After the service of these notices several parties appeared before the Subordinate Judge claiming the lands attached under different titles mentioned in their petitions of claim. These claimants were grouped into 13 different groups according to the nature of their respective claims. The attached lands have been subdivided into blocks A, B, C, D, E and F in the map prepared under Section 4(1) of the Act. At the time of the hearing of the case before the Subordinate Judge, the first, third, fifth, sixth and twelfth parties did not appear.

(2.) The second party alleged that they were the proprietors of two touzis, namely 2638 and 2901 of the Dacca Collectorate, and that an area of 1.60 acre of land of block A and the entire area of block F 266 acres of block B and blocks C, D and E appertained to these two touzis. The case of the fourth party claimants is that they are the proprietors of Touzi No. 9567 of the Dacca Collectorate and that that portion of disputed land which falls within the Mouza Amirabad as re-layed in the case map according to the map of Hari Kisan Guha appertains to the touzi. They also allege that they are the owners of a certain share of Touzi No. 330 of the Dacca Collectorate and claim a portion of the disputed lands which fall within this touzi proportionate to their share. The other parties claim the entire area of the attached lands which fall within residuary chak of the thak map of Mouza Mukshedpur and 5 annas 6 gandas 3 karas of Chak No. 88 of that thak which appertains to Touzi No. 330. They denied the claim of the fourth party to that portion of the attached land which falls within the ambit of the Touzi No. 9587, that is Chak Amirabad as shown in the map prepared under Section 4(1), Alluvial Lands Act. The ninth party claims to be the owner of Touzi No. 327 of the Dacca Collectorate. His case is that the remaining portion of the attached land lying within Thak Chak 88 of Mouza Mukshedpur appertains to his touzi.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the entire evidence in the case has arrived at the following findings : (1) That the area shown in the case map as Amirabad re- layed on the strength of the maps of Shiba Prosad and Har Kishore from the red thak lines appertains to Touzi No. 9587 and belongs to the fourth party. (2) That blocks C, D, E and E and portions of blocks A and B that are outside Touzi No. 9587 and are to the south of the line drawn towards the river from station 20 of Shiba Prosad's map appertain to Touzis Nos. 2638 and 2901 of the Dacca Collectorate and belong to the second party. (3) That the northern portion of the block B excluding the areas appertaining to Touzis Nos. 2638, 2901 and 9587 falls within the residue of Mukshedpur which appertains to Touzi No. 330 and 5 annas 6 gandas 3 karas of Thak Chak No. 88 of Mukshedpur of which 4 annas appertain to Touzi No. 327 and the rest appertains to Touzi No. 330. (4) That the share of the fourth party in Touzi No. 330 is as given in the D Register (Ex. 3-c and 44-1). The learned Judge directed a decree to be drawn up in accordance with those findings. The seventh party, the seventh claimant of the eighth party and the 13 party who are some of the proprietors of Touzi No. 330 have preferred this appeal against the decree of the Subordinate Judge. The 12 party have filed cross-objections. In these grounds of appeal the appellants claimed the lands decreed by the Subordinate Judge in favour of the proprietors of Touzis Nos. 9587, 2638 and 2901, but before the hear, ing of the appeal commenced they settled their dispute amicably with the owners of Touzis Nos. 2638 and 2901 and abandoned their claim to the lands decreed in their favour. A petition has been filed in the Court embodying the terms of settlement. The appeal so far as it relates to the lands decreed in favour of the proprietors of Touzis Nos. 2638 and 2901 who are second party claimants, respondents 1 to 22 in the appeal is therefore disposed of in accordance with the terms of compromise and the said petition of compromise will form part of the decree of this Court.