PROBHAT CHANDRA SEN Vs. HARI MOHAN DHUPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs as Panchayets and members of the Dhobi community of Narinda in the Town of Dacca for recovery of possession of an Akhra of certain Thakurs together with the lands, buildings and moveable properties appurtenant thereto on declaration of the rights of the said Dhobi community to the same.

(2.) It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the Akhra has been in existence on the Lakheraj land of Schedule (ka) from time immemorial for the worship of certain Thakurs, which has been installed by the ancestors of the Dhobi community of Narinda, that the Akhra and the adjoining lands, buildings and structures appertaining to the same have been in the ownership, possession, management and control of the Dhobi community of Narinda in succession to their ancestors and that by virtue of adverse prossession for a period far exceeding 12 years in succession to their ancestors from time immemorial the Dhobi community of Narinda have acquired an indefeasible right to the properties," and that " the Panohayets appointed by the Dhobi community have all along been vested with the right and ownership as also with the power of exercising acts of ownership and possession and of controlling and managing the said Akhra and all properties appertaining thereto as also the appointment and dismissal of the priest and Shebait for performing the worship of the deities." It is further alleged that one Hari Das Babaji was the former Pajari, but he was dismissed by the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 6 was appointed in his place, that the defendant No. 1 in 1905 purchased a hari to the north of the Akhra, and in collusion with the defendant No. 6, opened a passage over the Akhra : this led to disputes and criminal proceedings. The plaintiffs dismissed the defendant No. 6, appointed another person as Pajari in his place, and brought a title suit against the former for establishment of title to and possession of the Akhra and the properties belonging to it, which was decreed, but the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 in collusion with the defendant No. 6 offered resistance to plaintiffs obtaining possession, which led to the institution of the present suit.

(3.) The defendants denied the title and possession of the Diobi community. They pleaded inter alia that the Akhra together with the properties appertaining thereto belonged to the Biaragis whom the plaintiffs called Pujaris, and not to the Dhobi community, that the Akhra site was in a Taluk which on a partition fell to the share of certain Ghoses who took a kabuliyat from Hari Das and subsequently allowed the defendant No. 6 to continue in possession as a tenant-at-will, and that the defendant No. 1 took a Miras settlement of the land from the Ghoses and purchased the huts of the Akhra from the defendant No. 6.