GUEUDAS KUNDU CHOWDHURY Vs. KUMAR HEMENDRA KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case which has arisen out of one of those curious effects of nature which have often been before the Board, namely, the behaviour of the Ganges. There were three families who, for brevity's sake, have been named the Kundu set, the Mukherjeo set, and the Roy set. They were three families of zemindars who were in joint possession of certain mousahs called Durlabhpur in Jirat and Hatikanda. They wore in joint possession in law. It was quite true that they had a separate towzi number, but that makes no difference is the legal character of the possession. These properties disappeared under the Ganges, After a considerable period of years they reappeared and when they reappeared they were in juxtaposition to some property held by the Government. The Government assumed that the land which had come out of the Ganges was an accretion to their property, and proceeded to put tenants upon it but after a certain time the zemindars woke up to the fact that it might be their property that had reappeared from under the Ganges, and, accordingly, they took the ordinary stops, namely an application to the Court of the Collector. Originally the two sets, the Roy set and the Kundu set, made applications, but the Roy set did not persevere, and there is a copy of the order sheet in the Court of the Collector in which, dealing with the Roy application, it says : "The notice-givers took no steps to establish their right to the lands claimed by them as a reformation in situ. On the other hand the Kundu Babus of Mouri have succeeded in establishing that Government has no right to the mouzas of Jirat and Durlabhpur." Accordingly, there is on the other order sheet a certified copy of order of release in which the Collector says : " I accordingly order that the lands included within the Revenue Survey boundaries of Char Jirat and Durlabhpur as shown in exhibits A and A (2) be released." That put the Kundu people in lawful possession of the whole of the lands. It is quite true that they, although in lawful possession of the whole of the lands, were not really in one sense in lawful possession because they had, as regards the other two families, only a right to a 6 annas share; the. other 10 annas share being in the right of the other two families.

(2.) When the Government had been there they had thought that the best way to deal with the land was to let it in putni to a person of the name of Srish. Sri sir sooins to have worked the land well and settled cultivators upon it, and he paid his putni to the Government. When the Kundu family got possession of the land under the lease they thought that the best plan that they could adopt was to continue Sriwh and they did.

(3.) After a little while the other two families woke up to the fact that as the lands had been recovered, and as they had a right to a 10 annas share of it, they had better make effectual their right, and accordingly they raised action for that purpose. That action was defended by the Kundus. The first Judge gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs; then there was an appeal in which that judgment was reversed; and then there, was an appeal to the Privy Council which restored the judgment of the first Judge.