Skip to content


Moharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. PulIn Mal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in60Ind.Cas.386
AppellantMoharaj Bahadur Singh
RespondentPulIn Mal
Excerpt:
adverse possession - waste land--deposit of earth followed by other acts, whether amounts to dispossession--suit for possession--limitation. - .....plaintiff was in substance that the defendant by re excavating the tank and by depositing upon the land in suit the earth removed from the tank had dispossessed him. the question then, in substance, was when did this re-excavation and this deposit take place. plaintiff's witnesses tried to prove that the re excavation and deposit had occurred nine or ten years before suit, but, some of the plaintiff's own witnesses contradicted this allegation, and both the courts below have found that the re excavation and deposit of earth upon the plaintiff's land occurred some fifteen years before suit. it is suggested before us that mere deposit of earth upon a person's land does not necessarily amount to dispossession, it may be a mere act of trespass, but the finding is that the earth was deposited.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises onto a suit brought for recovery of possession on establishment of title to a piece of land measuring 1 bigha in area. It appears that his 1 bigha was formerly a strip of laud abutting on a tack belonging to the defendant on its north and east banks. It has been found by (be Court of first appeal that this strip of land is within the plaintiff's Mauza, but it has next come to the conclusion that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation, and has, therefore, dismissed the sail. In this appeal it is contended before us by the learned Vakil for the appellant that the finding arrived at by the learned District Judge is insufficient and he hopes his contention on the fast that, when in possession of the plaintiff, this land was lying waste. In the plant the allegation of the plaintiff was in substance that the defendant by re excavating the tank and by depositing upon the land in suit the earth removed from the tank had dispossessed him. The question then, in substance, was when did this re-excavation and this deposit take place. Plaintiff's witnesses tried to prove that the re excavation and deposit had occurred nine or ten years before suit, but, some of the plaintiff's own witnesses contradicted this allegation, and both the Courts below have found that the re excavation and deposit of earth upon the plaintiff's land occurred some fifteen years before suit. It is suggested before us that mere deposit of earth upon a person's land does not necessarily amount to dispossession, it may be a mere act of trespass, but the finding is that the earth was deposited with the intention of taking possession of this strip of land, and the throwing of earth upon the land was followed by the removal of tal trees and the planting of valuable trees on the same. We think, having regard to the case on which the parties went to trial, the finding arrived at is sufficient. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //