SURENDRA KUMAR ROY CHOUDHURY Vs. AHMED NAWAB CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals have arisen out of as many suits which were instituted by the heirs of the late Nawab Mohammad Ali, Nawab Choudhri Khan Bahadur of Paschimgaon whose estate is now under the management of the Court of Wards. Appeal No. 226 of 1931 has arisen out of Suit No. 32, No. 227 of 1931 out of Suit No. 33, and No. 17 of 1933 out of Suit No. 34. These three suits were instituted in 1927, but were numbered in 1929 when they were given these numbers. The other Appeal No. 18 of 1933, has arisen out of another suit which was instituted in 1926 but was re-numbered as No. 35 of 1929 and tried along with the aforementioned three suits. The plaintiffs in all the four suits are the owners of Touzi No. 100 of the Tipperah Collectorate and the lands concerned therein are situate in a village named Mouzah Doulkhar within Pargana Homnabad in the District of Tipperah. The village appertains to two touzis, namely Nos. 100 and 315 between which its lands are divided.

(2.) It will be convenient, to take up the first three appeals first. The third party defendants in the suits out of which these three appeals have arisen are the owners in zemindari right of Touzi No. 315; the first party defendants are tenure-holders under the said zemindars: and the second party defendants are ryots holding under aid tenure-holders. The plaintiffs case in these suits is that their predecessor-in-interest was in possession of village Doulkhar of Touzi No. 100 by realising rents from tenants and keeping some lands in khas patit; that in 1302 B.S. (wrongly stated in the plaints as 1301 B.S.), there was a survey made by him of Touzi No. 100 by relaying and demarcating the boundaries of Thak Chaks and it was then found that the first party defendants or their predecessors were holding wrongful possession of he lands in suit through their tenants the second party defendants; that there upon the plaintiffs predecessor was about to take action for ejecting the wrongdoers but eventually the matter was amicably settled, the said first party defendants or their predecessor taking settlement of those lands by executing kabidiyats in his favour. It was alleged further that in the last District Survey and Settlement operations, the records whereof were finally published in 1920, the said lands were recorded in the miliki khatian of the plaintiffs predecessor as appertaining to Touzi No. 100 up to the attestation stage, but subsequently owing to objections filed by the third party defendants under Section 103-A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the entries were changed and the lands in suit were recorded as appertaining to Touzi No. 315 of the third party defendants and as included in the taluk of the first party defendants. The suits were filed as the said entries might adversely affect the plaintiffs interest. The substantial prayers were 1st, declaration of the plaintiffs zemindari right and right by adverse possession, 2nd, ejectment against the first party defendants on the ground that their tenures under the plaintiffs were forfeited, as they had in the objection cases under Section 103-A, Bengal Tenancy Act repudiated the plaintiffs title and set up the title of the third party defendants ; and 3rd, khas possession by eviction of the second parly defendants in case they put forward any plea against the plaintiffs interest.

(3.) The third party defendants arid the first party defendants filed written statements in these three suits. It is unnecessary to refer to these written statements in detail, because the scope of the controversy at the present stage has been very much reduced by reason of the fact that it is only one of the parties, namely, the third party defendants who have preferred these appeals and the ground on which the appeals have been pressed is also a limited one. The first party defendants in Suit No. 32 practically supported the plaintiffs, asserting that the hinds in that suit appeitain to Touzi No. 100 and are in their possession as tenure-holder under the plaintiffs. The first party defendants of Suits NOS. 33 and 34 denied the plaintiffs title to the lands in those suits, except as regards two of the plots concerned in the latter suit and alleged that they appertained to Touzi No. 315 of the third party defendants. In all the three suits the first party defendants denied that any forfeiture had been incurred.