1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain plots of land which they claim as appertaining to their resumed taluk No. 4830. The claim was resisted by the putnidar who claimed the lands as appertaining to his zemindari.
2. The Court of first instance found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their title, and also to prove their possession within twelve years prior to the institution of the suit.
3. The lower appellate Court reversed that decision, holding that a certain resumption chitta, which was filed by the plaintiffs, afforded sufficient and conclusive evidence of the plaintiffs' title; and relying upon this proof of their title, the Sub-Judge went on to presume that the plaintiffs had been in possession within twelve years.
4. It is contended before us that the chitta relied upon by the lower appellate Court was not evidence in the case, and that it was certainly not such evidence as concluded the parties. We think that this contention must prevail. This point arose in the case of Ram Chunder Sao v. Bunseedhur Naik 9 C. 741, in which it was held that a resumption chitta, in the absence of the resumption proceedings, was not evidence to prove the resumption of the particular lands in suit.
5. The present case appears to be precisely similar. The resumption proceedings have not been put in, and, in their absence, it is impossible to say that the chitta in question correctly describes the lands that were resumed in those proceedings. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, wrong in our opinion in relying upon that chitta as by itself proving the plaintiffs' title.
6. We think, therefore, that the decree of the lower appellate Court must be set aside and that of the first Court restored. The appellant will shave his costs in this and in the lower appellate Court.