KAMESHWAR SINGH BAHADUR Vs. FATURI MISSRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have in this case to deal with two appeals one in which the plaintiff who is the Maharajadhiraj of Darbhanga claims possession of 127 bighas odd of land which had been recorded in the record of rights as parti and jungle lands. In the other appeal the same plaintiff against other defendants sought possession of 62 bighas odd of the same lands. In the case dealing with the larger area, the learned Subordinate Judge of Purnea found against the plaintiff but gave a decree for rent as against the defendants. He came to a similar decision as regards the lesser area of land. In appeal however to the District Judge the judgment relating to the 62 bighas was reversed and the plaintiff's claim allowed. In both cases although the defendants were different the defence was the same that the lands had been settled with them in the year 1316-1317 and in both cases this story of settlement has been disbelieved by the learned Judge of the trial Court.

(2.) No argument is addressed to us on this question and the finding of the learned Judge in relation to the 127 bighas on this point is therefore upheld. The question of adverse possession however with which the trial Court had dealt is argued before us and it is contended that the decision arrived at on this point is wrong both in law and in fact. Before dealing with this point, it is necessary to state the reasons which the learned Judge of the trial Court gives in coming to a decision in favour of the defendants in this matter. As I have stated, the defendants case was that there had been a settlement with them in the year 1316-1317 and the learned Subordinate Judge in his judgment points out that as the defendants failed to prove the settlement the proper course would have been to accept the case of the plaintiff that the defendants began to cultivate this land in 1329.

(3.) The reason he gives for not accepting the plaintiff's case is that there were circumstances in the case and in the evidence of the plaintiff which prevented a decision in favour of the plaintiff being arrived at. It would appear that the plaintiff in the trial Court produced his books for the years 1317 to 1319. The gap which the learned Judge mentions and which existed between the years 1319 and 1329 is described by the learned Judge as a long one and that the failure of the plaintiff to produce books for those years is a circumstance which led him to come to the conclusion that the defendants were in fact in possession for a long time prior to the year 1329.