TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 9 dhurs of Dubha Taufir by their ancestor Naurang Thakur as occupancy tenant and the record of his rights in the survey papers of 1892 and (b) the oral arrangement with the Dumraon Raj. The first branch of this claim is obviously incorrect. The survey papers of 1892 do not record occupancy tenancy rights of Naurang Thakur in 426 bighas 18 kathas and 9 dhurs. In the High Court, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded that in the Khasra of 1892-1893 survey the plaintiffs' branch was recorded as tenant for about 19 bighas only. The oral arrangement is not established, and the second branch of this claim also fails. The Subordinate Judge did not examine the basis of the plaintiffs' claim of title. His finding in favour of the plaintiffs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to enhancement. Later, on June 10, 1913, a petition was filed on his behalf stating that the plaintiffs' ancestors were tenants in occupation of the disputed land having guzashta kasht rights. The Maharaja was interested in the success of the suit, and it was necessary for him in his own interest to make this admission. The admission was made under somewhat suspicious circumstances at the end of the trial of the case when the arguments had begun. Though this petition was filed, the written statement of the Maharaja was never formally amended. In the circumstances, this admission has weak evidentiary value. In this suit, the plaintiffs do not claim tenancy right either by express grant or by adverse possession. Title cannot pass by m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hown to exist, an inference of its continuity within a reasonably proximate time both forwards and backwards may sometimes be drawn. The presumption of future continuance is noticed in Illustration (d) to S. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In appropriate cases, an inference of the continuity of a thing or state of things backwards may be drawn under this section, though on this point the section does not give a separate illustration. The rule that the presumption of continuance may operate retrospectively has been recognished both in India, see Anangamanjari Chowdhrani v. Tripura Soondari Chowdhrani (1) and England, see Bristow v. Cormican(2), Deo v. Young(1). The broad observation in Manmatha Nath Haldar v. Girish Chandra Roy(4) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the plaintiffs must have held those plots from the time of the, Permanent Settlement. The contention is based on fallacious reasoning. Section 50(2) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 raises in a suit or proceeding under the Act a presumption that a raiyat has held at the same rate of rent since the Permanent Settlement, if it is shown that the rate of rent has not been changed during the last 20 years. Fixity of rent may arise not only from this presumption but also from express grant. An entry in the record of rights showin that the tenancy was at a fixed rate of rent does not necessarily mean that the tenant was holding the land from the time of the Permanent Settlement. The point based on the entries in Ex. L-1(13) was not taken in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of their branch. In the Courts below, no attempt was made by the plaintiffs to apportion the accretions amongst the several frontier plots. Without further investigation, the alluvial accretions in respect of each plot cannot be ascertained. This is not a fit case for remand at this late stage. The further case of the plaintiffs that the defendants3rd party lost their title to their portion of the Taufir lands is not established. It is neither alleged nor proved that the plaintiffs and the defendants-3rd party jointly owned and possessed the Taufir lands. In the absence of pleading and proof of joint title and possession, the plaintiffs' claim for recovery of the entire Taufir lands must fail. Realising this difficulty, counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of S. 4 of Regu- lation XI of 1825, the plaintiffs must also prove that the Taufir lands were gained by gradual accession from the recess of the river. Having regard to our conclusions on the other points, we do not wish to express any opinion on this question. Even if the Taufir lands were gained by gradual accession, this gain did not accrue for the benefit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have failed to establish that they or their ancestors held any plot or plots to which the accretions were annexed. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their title based upon cl. (1) of s. 4 of Regulation XI of 1825. They have also failed to establish their claim of title based upon oral arrangements. Their claim of title based upon occupation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
