Decided on March 24,1900



Robertson, J - (1.) The respondents are in possession of the land in dispute by virtue of a Magistrate's order granted in August 1885. The onus is, therefore, on the appellant who claims the land to make out that she has the better right.
(2.) In considering the question thus raised it is well to have in mind the nature of the disputed land. Its area is about 1,400 bighas, but it is a significant fact that the most various estimates on this subject have been made during the period in dispute, the reason being that very few people had occasion to be there or were interested in its size. The decree to which this is the case may be gathered from two facts. It is clearly ascertained that in 1865 there were no human beings living on any part of the ground, and only one-twentieth of the whole area was susceptible of cultivation. At the time of this action there was only one small group of dwellings. The ground, generally speaking, is jungle; but there has been in some parts, more or less of intermittent cultivation.
(3.) The two competitors for this territory are, on the one hand, the Collector of Khulna (who will hereafter be referred to as the respondent), whose lessee is in possession and whose theory is that this is southern part of his talukh of Bhil Pabla, and on the other hand the appellant who is the undoubted proprietor of the mauza of Kulati which lies to the south of the disputed land An important feature of the case however is that the appellant's theory is not that the land forms part of the mauza Kulati but that it forms a separate mauza bearing the name of Uttar Kulati and lying between Kulati and Bhil Pabla. Although the vicissitudes of this prolonged dispute might naturally have suggested the simpler view, the appellant has never pretended that the disputed ground is part of the mauza Kulati and this is not suggested on the record. The sequel will show that this is not a merely nominal distinction.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.