- (1.) I think the decision of the lower appellate Court in this case is substantially right. I do not think we are called upon to set that decision aside, or to refer any point, as suggested, for the consideration of the Full Bench. The plaintiff's case here was, that he had purchased from the heirs of one Eiazuddin, who was proprietor of an Ayma close to the talook of the defendants called Chuk Bansharia; that he had held possession down to 1274 (1867); and that he was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants. The defendants deny that the land in dispute was a part of the Ayma in question. They say it belonged as mal land to their talook, and was held by Eiazuddin as tenant under them.
(2.) The lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff had been in possession down to 1274 (1867), and had been wrongfully and forcibly dispossessed by the defendants; and under those circumstances, he called upon the defendants to show by what right they had dispossessed the plaintiff; and the defendants failing to show any such right, he declared that he would not enquire into the title of the plaintiff; and, in coming to that conclusion, be refers to a decision of this Court in Dabjee Sahoo v. Shaikh Tumeezooddeen 10 W.R. 102.
(3.) It may be quite conceded, that the Judge's language in this case has been a little unguarded, or at any rate that he has not used exactly proper words to convey his meaning. If the Judge meant to say that possession as a thing apart from title was something which would give the plaintiff a right to recover possession of his land, I do not think we should uphold him in that opinion; but I have no doubt that what the Judge meant to say in this case was that the plaintiff having shown possession down to 1274, he could infer from the fact of possession a right to be replaced in possession, that is, some title to the land and thought it needless to enquire further into title, that is to say to require documentary proof, or specific proof of the mode of acquisition upon which that title was founded. Though not put in so many words, yet I thick, this was what the Judge meant; and I think he was right. I think be was also in accordance with the ruling in the case of Dabjee Sahoo v. Shaikh Tumeezooddeen 10 W.R. 102.;