1. These appeals arise out of six suits for the recovery of possession of certain chur land in the District of Dacca. The plaintiffs' case is that they wore inducted on to the land in or after the year 1902 by the Nawab of Dacca and his co-sharers, who were then the zemindars in actual possession as such. Thereafter, a suit was brought for the recovery of possession of the land by Mr. Lal Mohan Ghose. That suit ended in a compromise in favour of Mr. Ghose, who thereupon settled his own tenants on the chur and dispossessed the plaintiffs. These are the facts alleged, and they are, we think, the facts found by the lower Appellate Court, which has decreed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs were raiyats, and not trespassers, and were, therefore, entitled to recover possession on the principle laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Binad Lal Pakrashi v. Kalu Pra manik 20 C. 708.
2. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that the Full Bench case just cited is distinguishable, because in it the plaintiffs were the landlords who had established their title to the land, and the defendants were the tenants put in possession by the earlier de facto landlords. Here, the case is one of tenants seeking to recover possession from other tenants actually on the land. There is, no doubt, this difference between the two cases. But the principle laid down by the Full Bench remains and is, we think, clearly applicable. That principle was that a tenant let into possession bona fide by a de facto landlord is not a trespasser, but has a good title. If that be so, the plaintiffs in this case have, on the findings in the lower Appellate Court, established their title and their right to recover possession from persons setting up a later title.
3. It is next argued that there is no distinct finding. Both the plaintiffs and the Nawab Bahadur and his co-sharers were acting bona fide. It is said it is clear, from the rulings of this Court in Peary Mohan Mondal v. Radhika Mohun Hazra 8 C.W.N. 315 : 5 C.L.J. 9. and Upendra Narain Battacharya, v. Protap Chandra Pardhan 8 C.W.N. 320 : 31 C. 703. that such findings were necessary. Having regard to the facts that the land in question was chur land, that the suit between the Nawab and Mr. Ghose was compromised and that the presumption must always be in favour of bona fides, we think that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that there is nothing to show that there was any mala fides on the part of the plaintiffs or that they know their landlords to have been trespassers, far less that they colluded with them' is sufficient.
4. Finally, it is pointed out that Malanando Mandal, who was the plaintiff in the three suits out of which Second Appeals Nos. 2051, 3754 and 3755 have arisen, died after the disposal of those suits in the Court of first instance and that, his heir as such has appealed. If a non-occupancy right it not heritable, then the plaintiffs in those cases had no locus standi. It has now been decided by a Full Bench of this Court that non-occupancy holdings are heritable and, therefore, the point fails.
5. In the result we think that these appeals fail and should be dismised with costs.