1. This appeal arises out of certain proceedings taken under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886.
2. It appears that the plaintiff had obtained from the Revenue Authorities a settlement of four dags or plots numbered, respectively, 417, 418, 430 and 432. Subsequently, a settlement was made with the defendant of two plots numbered 557 and 558. The plaintiff, alleging that the plots had, in whole or in part, been wrongly included within the plots settled with the defendant, brought a suit for a declaration to that effect. Apparently, such a suit would lie notwithstanding the provisions of Section 154 of the Regulation; see the cases of Madhub Nath Surma v. Myarani Medhi 17 C.819 and Patan Maria v. Bhabiram Dutt Barua 24 C 239; 1 C.W.N. 94 and it has not been suggested that it is otherwise.
3. The findings of fact of the lower Appellate Court obviously conclude the case save as regards the plots Nos. 417 and 418 in the plaintiff's settlement. As regards those, the claim has been disallowed by the lower Appellate Court because, although they are proved to have been wrongly included in plot No. 553 of the defendant's settlement, they are stated in the plaint to have been so included in plot No. 557 of that settlement. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to have thought that this misdescription was absolutely fatal, and he has held that, so long as the plaint was not amended and 'dag No. 557' corrected into 'dag No. 558,' no relief could be granted with reference to dags Nos. 417 and 418 of the plaintiff's settlement.
4. It seems to us that, in the face of the clear finding that plots Nos. 417 and 418 of the plaintiff's settlement have been, to the extent alleged in the plaint, actually included in plot No. 558 of the defendant's settlement, there is no substance whatever in the point. The appeal must, we think, be allowed in part, the decree of the Courts below discharged and the plaintiff's suit for a declaration of title decreed as regards dags Nos. 417 and 418 of his settlement.
5. Having regard to the mistake in the plaint and the fact the the plaint had already had to be amended, we make no order as to costs.