ANANTA GHOSH Vs. PYARY LAL MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although there is no map in this case, the relative position of the plots in suit is not open to any doubt. Plot No. 1, said to consist of 6 bighas, is on the west of plot No. 2 said to consist of 2 bighas. The latter is in a northernly direction from certain resumed chakran lands. The Court of first instance accepting the admission in the deposition of defendant No. 1, as to the plaintiff being in possession of some lands north of the resumed chakran lands, gave a decree to the plaintiff for the land in the second plot but not for the land of the first plot in suit.

(2.) On appeal to the Subordinate Judge, that officer pointed out that, on a proper reading of the defendant's deposition, the suit should have been decreed with regard to the 6 bighas in plot No. 1 also, and, in that view of the matter, he gave the plaintiff a decree for that plot also.

(3.) In second appeal two contentions have boon advanced, namely, first, that there was no such admission on the part of the defendant in his deposition entitling the plaintiff to a decree in respect of either plot, and, secondly, that the Subordinate Judge has failed to decide the issue of limitation which the Munsif omitted to decide merely because he did not give the plaintiff a decree fur the first plot.