ALABAKSH BHUYAN Vs. BIR BIKRAM KISHORE MANIKYA BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three appeals by the defendant and arise out of three suits commenced by the Maharaja of Tripura for recovery of khas possession of lands mentioned in the respective schedules to the plaint in the three suits on declaration of his title by auction-purchase, The case stated in the plaint in each of these suits is that the disputed lands in these suits appertained to taluk Uddhab Ram Deb which is admittedly held under the zemindari of the plaintiff-respondent, that so far back as the year 1877 the Maharaja became the owner of this taluk by purchasing the same in execution of a decree for rent against the holder of the taluk, that in the year 1880 in execution of that decree for rent the Maharaja obtained delivery of possession. The plaintiff states that the defendant has been in actual possession of the disputed lands without obtaining any settlement from the plaintiff or without payment of rent and that they are trespassers and as such they are liable to be evicted. The defence of the defendant in each of these three suits is that these lands did not appertain to taluk Uddhab Ram Deb the title of which is now vested in the plaintiff but it appertains to taluk Ram Chandra Thakur which is also a taluk situate within the zemindari of the Maharaja and that the defendant held under leases from the talukdars of the said taluk. The defendant also raised the plea of limitation.

(2.) The Court of first instance dismissed all these three suits. On appeal to the District Judge of Tippera the learned District Judge has reversed the decision of the Court of first instance in part and he has given a decree to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession in suit lands of Appeal No. 9 before him which corresponds to Second Appeal No. 1431 before us in regard to all the lands except parts marked in the Commissioner's map as A.B.B. and D. In the suit to which Second Appeal No. 1432 corresponds the learned District Judge has given a decree to the plaintiff in all the lands except a part marked M in the Commissioner's map and in the suit to which Second Appeal No. 1433 corresponds the learned District Judge has given a decree to the plaintiff for the part marked P in the Commissioner's map.

(3.) Against the decision in these three suits as modified by the learned District Judge the present appeals have been preferred to this Court and three points have been taken by the learned Advocate for the defendant who is the appellant before us.