1. This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 8th April 1916, reversing the decision of the Additional Munsif of the same place. The suit was one brought for recovery of possession of land. The plaintiff claimed that he had got a settlement from the defendant No. 2, who had purchased the Taluk lhat had formerly belonged to one Mobarak Ali and which had been sold for arrears of revenue under the Patni Regulation. The defendant No. 1 said that he was a purchaser of the property from Mobarak Ali's daughter. The appeal is preferred substantially on this ground. It is said that the defendant No. 1 in his written statement failed to deny the allegation made by the plaintiff that the property sued for formed a portion of Mobarak Ali's Taluk and that, therefore, there was a constructive admission and no proof was required of that. There are many answers to this--first of all, proof was required by the Court. Evidence was given on both sides as to whether this land was or was not within the limits of Mobarak Ali's Taluk. From this it is quite clear that the Judge in the Court of first instance did not act on this supposed admission. Secondly, in these written statements filed before the Munsif, one cannot expect a very high standard of pleadings. The defendant No. 1 in this case says that he denied everything: he denied the title of the plaintiff and denied all the allegations contained in the plaint. Of course, that may not be a very scientific way of drafting a written statement. But what is clear from that is that this defendant intended to put every fact in issue and all the facts being in issue and the Judge having required proof of the title of the plaintiff, in coming to the the conclusion that the learned Judge did come to, he simply dealt with the case on the footing that there was no supposed admission made by the defendant No. 1. The learned Judge was not bound by the view that the learned Munsif took. That seems to be quite obvious.
2. The other point raised, namely, whether the plaintiff's lessor has got a title under the Patni Regulation which must override any title that the defendant No. 1 has, has absolutely no force in it at all, because the first thing and the essential thing for the plaintiff to prove is that the property sued for forms a portion of the Taluk brought to sale under the Patni Regulation and this he has failed to prove.
3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Shamsul Huda, J.
4. I agree.