1. This, appeal arises in a litigation regarding certain property which is claimed by the plaintiff as his Lakheraj Brahmotar property.
2. Both the lower Courts have found that though the plaintiff was unable to connect this property with any sanad, or document, or grant, it was sufficiently proved that he had been in uninterrupted possession for over 12 years.
3. On behalf of the defendants,it is now urged, first, that there was no issue, and no allegation on the side of the plaintiff, as to title having been acquired by adverse possession for over 12 years; and, secondly, that the lower appellate Court has wrongly admitted, and considered in evidence copy of a deposition given by the defendant No. 3 on the 1st April 1903.
4. It is unnecessary to decide the second contention though the inclination of our mind is that the document in question was not admissible, regard being had to Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. However that may be, we think the findings arrived at by the lower appellate Court are sufficient to dispose of this second appeal.
5. The plaint contains an assertion of Lakheraj Brahmotar interest subsisting for over 100 years. There was an issue (No. 4) directed to that point, and the lower appellate Court found the weight of evidence to be on the side of the plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge very correctly says: 'The law is that in Lakheraj cases, the title may fail and yet if possession as Lakherajdars, that is to say, possession without payment, is proved, it may be sufficient to give a Lakheraj title.' We think these findings were independently arrived at, apart from some observations interposed by the Subordinate Judge in the body of the judgment when he dealt with the defence of the defendant No. 1 and the kabuliat, which that defendant endeavoured to set up in support of his plea.
6. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs.