RAM RAMBIJAYA PRASAD SINGH Vs. KRISHNA MADHO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals relate to a claim to certain lands the particulars of which are given in the Schedule to the plaint in Second Appeal No. 1048 of 1933. The claim is in respect of tauzi No. 1504 and accretions thereto since the date upon which this touzi was settled. The settlement, as will appear from the statement of facts I propose to make, was made in 1862. I propose to state my reasons for my conclusions briefly, although the argument in the case lasted for a considerable time. There were only two points in the case: first, what was the subject-matter of the settlement of 1862, and, secondly, whether the plaintiffs in Second Appeal No. 1048 of 1933 had acquired a title to the property in suit by adverse possession.

(2.) The defendant's title to the land dated from the year 1903 when this touzi No. 1504 was sold by Government for arrears of revenue and purchased by the Maharani of Dumraon. The plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-title were the defaulting proprietors. Some time prior to the year 1862 it was found, after survey, that mahal Sheopur Diar Gangbarar showed an excess of some thousands of bighas more than the proprietors were entitled to hold, and it was under those circumstances that the settlement was made. The question in this case and in a number of other cases that have arisen out of the same facts is whether the subject-matter of the settlement was the excess of 28774 bighas which was found to exist or was 569 bighas odd as was contended for. The matter was determined in a previous suit (to which I shall make reference) on the construction of a rubkari (Ex. 12) made at the time of the settlement.

(3.) By a decision of this Court in Appeal from O.D. No. 57 of Babu Tilakdhari Singh V/s. Maharaja Kesho Prasad A.F.O.D. No. 57 of 1916 Das J. as he then was and Foster J. came to the conclusion that the subject-matter of the settlement was 2877 bighas and not, as contended for by the defendants in the action, 569 bighas. I make reference to this matter at this stage of my observations as the alternative argument on behalf of one of the respondents is different from that, which was advanced in the Court below.