1. Out of the 4 bighas claimed by the plaintiff, only a small portion, 2 cottas 10 dhurs, is now in controversy. A partition was effected between the predecessors of the parties in 1851 and this portion of the land was then allotted to the plaintiffs predecessors. Subsequently the whole area claimed was submerged and remained under water till within twelve years of the date of the institution of the suit. Since its re-appearance the defendant has been in possession. A survey was made in or about the year 1000 (during the period of submersion) when the land was recorded in the name of the plaintiff. In regard, therefore, to the area of 2 cottus 10 dhurs the plaintiff has in his favour both the partition title and the survey record. On these facts possession of this area during the period of submersion should have been attributed to him. The learned District Judge in the Court below-referred to the fact that the defendant leased out the fishery rights during the period of submersion. This is not sufficient to show actual possession by the defendant during that period of the small portion of the bed of the river which belonged to the plaintiff.
2. The appeal is allowed in regard to the 2 cottas 10 dhurs and dismissed as regards the remainder of the land. Proportionate costs throughout.
3. I agree.