1922 (8) TMI 3 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Establishment of title and partition of land.
2. Validity of purchases by Abdul Majid and Abdul Azim.
3. Rights in Mouzas Champaknagar and Kalai-Gobindapur.
4. Title to an indigo factory.
5. Limitation period for establishing possession.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Establishment of Title and Partition of Land:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for the partition of land and establishment of title over a 6 gds 2k. 2kr. share in sikimi taluk Mohammad Amiruddin. They claimed that the disputed property originally belonged to Akikannessa Bibi and had devolved to them through successive transfers. The defendants contested this, asserting that the property had devolved on them and that the litigation was engineered by the fifth defendant, Lolitmohan Ray. The Subordinate Judge concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title and possession within 12 years antecedent to the suit, leading to the dismissal of the suit with costs.

2. Validity of Purchases by Abdul Majid and Abdul Azim:
The core arguments revolved around whether the purchases by Abdul Majid and Abdul Azim were genuine or fictitious. The plaintiffs contended that Akikannessa, who was heavily indebted, made these purchases in the name of Abdul Majid to avoid creditor claims. However, the court found no substantial evidence to prove that these transactions were fictitious. The Subordinate Judge held that the purchases were genuine, and the plaintiffs failed to provide legal testimony to establish otherwise. The court emphasized that decisions should rest on legal grounds, not suspicion.

3. Rights in Mouzas Champaknagar and Kalai-Gobindapur:
The Subordinate Judge noted considerable obscurity in the nature and extent of rights in Mouzas Champaknagar and Kalai-Gobindapur, known as Budhiamara Char, due to historical diluvion and reformation of the land. The court concluded that the title to the released lands vested in Khatunjan, and consequently, the shikimi taluks vested in the fifth defendant, with the first four defendants being the mirashdars. The plaintiffs' claim in this respect was dismissed.

4. Title to an Indigo Factory:
The court examined the partition-deed and ekrarnama of 3rd March 1843, which implied an under-tenure under Khatunjan. However, no evidence was found to show that this under-tenure was ever operational or that rent was paid. The court concluded that the under-tenure never came into existence or was in operation at the date of the suit.

5. Limitation Period for Establishing Possession:
The Subordinate Judge pointed out the lack of complete sets of collection papers from either side, making it difficult to establish peaceful occupation. However, the balance of evidence favored the defendants, who were proven to be the rightful owners. The court applied the rule that possession is presumed to go with the title, reinforcing the defendants' case over the plaintiffs'. The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the Subordinate Judge's decree.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the Subordinate Judge's decree, dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal with costs. The plaintiffs failed to establish their title and possession, and the transactions by Abdul Majid and Abdul Azim were deemed genuine. The rights in Mouzas Champaknagar and Kalai-Gobindapur were clarified, and the claim regarding the indigo factory was dismissed due to lack of evidence. The limitation period for establishing possession favored the defendants.