1929 (1) TMI 4 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of 44 bighas 8 kathas of agricultural land.
2. Identity of the land parcels in question.
3. Alleged abandonment and subsequent reclamation of land.
4. Discrepancies in the defendant's claims and evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of 44 bighas 8 kathas of agricultural land:
The primary issue in this suit is the ownership of 44 bighas 8 kathas of agricultural land within the mauza of Bela Pemo. The plaintiff claims that these lands, along with an additional 15 bighas 4 kathas, form part of three hereditary jotes held by his ancestors with occupancy rights. The plaintiff seeks to recover these lands from which he was dispossessed. The defendant, the Maharajah of Darbangha, contests this claim, asserting ownership of the land as Raj Parti land.

2. Identity of the land parcels in question:
The central question is whether the 44 bighas claimed by the plaintiff are part of his three jotes. The defendant raised doubts about the identity of the parcels, citing changes in the course of the River Kosi over 30 years ago. The High Court found that there was no dispute about the identity of the land when the contest became acute in 1916. Both parties had kabuliyats from their respective tenants, indicating agreement on the land's identity. The High Court concluded that the plaintiff's evidence, supported by a witness, sufficiently proved the identity of the 44 bighas as part of his jotes.

3. Alleged abandonment and subsequent reclamation of land:
The defendant initially argued that the land was abandoned due to a change in the river's course, leading to a deposit of sand and jungle growth, rendering the land unfit for cultivation from 1895 to 1907. The defendant claimed the plaintiff abandoned the land, and it was subsequently reclaimed by the Raj. However, this argument was inconsistent with the defendant's earlier statements in criminal proceedings, where no doubt was cast on the identity of the jotes. The High Court found that the defendant's new claims were not credible and that the plaintiff's jotes had not been abandoned.

4. Discrepancies in the defendant's claims and evidence:
The defendant's written statement in the suit contradicted his earlier defenses in criminal proceedings. Initially, the defendant claimed the plaintiff had no jote land in Bela Pemo, either ancestral or self-acquired. This claim was later abandoned, and the defendant's vakil admitted the existence of three jotes in the mouza. The High Court found overwhelming documentary evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim of holding jotes aggregating 59 bighas 14 kathas. The defendant's failure to produce village papers and measurement khasras, despite being called for, further weakened his case. The High Court inferred that the non-production of these documents indicated a fear that they would support the plaintiff's claim.

Conclusion:
The High Court, after careful examination of the evidence and considering the inconsistencies in the defendant's claims, concluded that the plaintiff had proven his ownership of the 44 bighas as part of his three jotes. The High Court's decree in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed, and the appeal by the Maharaja and his tenant was dismissed with costs. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistent and credible evidence in land ownership disputes and the adverse inference drawn from the non-production of key documents by the defendant.