1. It appears that plaintiff respondent instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Mahmudabad on the 3rd of October 1912 for the recovery of possession of a grove and for damages, on the allegation that the said grove belonged to him from which he had been wrongfully dispossessed by the defendant-appellant. The latter resisted the suit on various grounds. It was alleged in defence that the plaintiff-respondent had not been in possession of the grove within limitation and that twelve trees only out of the said grove belonged to the defendant-appellant, half of which he owned as zemindar and the other six he had purchased. The first Court dismissed the claim on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title and his possession over the grove within limitation. On appeal the learned District Judge disagreed with the first Court and held that the plaintiff had proved his title as also his possession over the grove within limitation. The claim was accordingly decreed.
2. The defendant has come up in appeal to this Court. In order to understand the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal it should be observed that during the hearing of the appeal in the Court below a document which was refused by the first Court was admitted by the learned Judge in evidence. The said document was a dakhalnama, dated the 12th of December 1889, and was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The Court of first instance declined to take it on the ground that it was a copy and had not been proved. The learned Judge admitted it, and I think rightly, on the ground that it was the copy of a public document and required no proof. The appellant challenges the title of the plaintiff to the grove in suit. It is said that the two documents relied upon by the learned Judge, viz., the dakhalnama arid the report of the Kanungo do not prove the plaintiff's title. All that the dakhalnama shows is that the plaintiff or his ancestors got 'possession over seven trees in plot No. 576, i.e., the plot upon which the grove in suit is situate. As to the report of the Kanungo it 'is said that all that it shows is that the plaintiff or his ancestor had only three trees in plot No. 576. It is argued that the onus was on the plaintiff to prove his title to the grove and as the said two documents on which the learned Judge has based his evidence are inconclusive, the claim of the plaintiff must fail. It is true that the dakhalnama relates to seven trees only. The report of the Kanungo refers really to more trees than three trees as has been pointed out by the lower Appellate Court. However the two documents--the dakhalnama and the report of the Kanungo taken together--do not make out the title of the plaintiff to the entire grove. If those documents were the only evidence in the case the contention for the appellant would be correct. But I find that there is another document on the record, and a much older one, which supports the title of the plaintiff. It is a judgment of the Munsif of Mahmudabad, dated the 7th of February 1885, in a case between the ancestor of the plaintiff and three sets of defendants in which the trees in plot No. 576 as also of many other plots were in dispute. It was there declared that the ancestor of the plaintiff was the proprietor of all the trees in plot No. 576 and the judgment of the Munsif was upheld both by the District Judge and by this Court. The title of the plaintiff, therefore, stands proved.
3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.