SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. RAM BACHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal from a decree of the learned Additional District Judge of Patna reversing a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Patna and decreeing the plaintiffs claim in part. The appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs were entitled to certain properties set out in the plaint and for recovery of possession thereof with mesne profits.

(2.) The suit was brought against the present appellant, the Secretary of State for India in Council, as defendant first party and against certain persons who claimed to be mukararridars of the plaintiffs as defendants second party and against certain other people who claimed to be tenants of the land in dispute under the khas mahal as defendants third party. The learned Subordinate Judge, who heard the case at the first instance, dismissed the plaintiffs claim in its entirety; but, on appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed that decision and decreed the plaintiffs claim for a declaration and recovery of possession of part of the land in dispute.

(3.) The plaintiffs are the proprietors of Keshwarpore Digha bearing tauzi No. 5123. The plaintiff patti had been formed by a Collec-torate partition of Mahal Digha and was commonly known as Panch Mahal Digha. The northern boundary of the plaintiffs property at the time of the revenue survey of 1843-44 was the river Ganges and it was alleged that the river had receded northwards and that a large tract of land had been formed by the alluvial action of the river during the years 1921 to 1928. The plaintiffs claimed this land as having once formed part of their estate as thak survey plots Nos. 3801 to 3814 and a portion of plot No. 3815. Such land, it was said, had long remained submerged under the waters of the Ganges, but it began to reappear and reform on its old site and gradually accreted to the plaintiffs land and, therefore, they were entitled to it as an accretion to their estate. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants second party were not mukarrari tenure-holders of the land immediately south of this alluviated area and consequently they had no claim to it. The defendants, appellants claimed this land as belonging to the Crown. It was alleged that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the land immediately adjoining the alluviated area in dispute and that the re- formation of the lands was not slow and gradual but that the disputed land had suddenly emerged out of the bed of the river Ganges in the year 1921, and as the river Ganges was a navigable river the land became the property of the Crown. The defendant further alleged that the Crown had taken possession of all the lands in dispute since the year 1921 and that the defendants third party had been settled thereon as tenants for more than 12 years. Consequently, it was contended that even if the land did in fact belong to the plaintiffs, their claim to it was barred by limitation.