The court affirmed that the accretion must be held to have been gradual, slow, and imperceptible, and therefore, the property of the Maharaja.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 11 of 1920) from a judgment and decree (November 15, 1916) affirming a decree (September 17, 1913) of the temporary Subordinate Judge of Cococanada.

The suit was brought by the respondents against the appellant for a declaration of the title of the plaintiff-respondent, the Raja of Vizianagaram, to an island in the Godavari River of about 1000 acres in extent, and for consequential relief. The river at the point in question was tidal and navigable, its bed being the property of the Government. The case made by the respondents was that land had been added by alluvion to a lanka which had been held to be an accretion in the Rajas riparian lands, and that subsequently the land had by action of the river become an island. The appellant by his written statement pleaded, (1.) that the lands in suit had been formed on the bed of a navigable river, and belonged to the Government, and (2.) that even if the lands in suit had been formed contiguously with any lands belonging to the plaintiff and in such manner as to be governed by the law of accretion, they nevertheless belonged to the Government as a vertical accretion to the bed of the river.

The following facts shortly extracted from the judgment of Srinivasa Aiyangar J. in the High Court show the progress of the formation by alluvion. Before 1870 land was formed in the river bed in contact with lanka land, known as Betaru lanka, which formed part of the Rajas village Kotipalli. This land, called the Voota lanka was in 1873 of about three acres, it was then washed away, but in 1870 was reformed, and in 1881 the lanka was of 100 acres. In 1882 most of this land was washed away, but on the subsidence of the floods of 1884, 610 acres were left in contact with Voota. This was the origin of the island. In 1887 floods carried away much of the alluvial land, and formed a channel which left an island of 250 acres. In subsequent years additions were made by alluvion, until at the date of the suit the area was about 1000 acres.

The first and second of the issues framed were as follows—

1. Whether the lanka to the west of the suit lands marked A in the plaintiffs plan belongs to plaintiff on the ground of its being an accretion to Betaru lanka, or whether the said lanka as well as the suit lands form together an entire lanka and are defendants property on the ground of the said entire lanka having been formed in the bed of a navigable river without any connection with any lands of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the suit lands belong to plaintiff on the ground of their being accretions to, or a part of, the lanka to the west of those lands, or whether even if they are accretions to the above lanka, they belong to defendant on the ground that they form a vertical accretion to the bed of the river ?

No direct evidence was called at the trial that the accretion had been "perceptible," but it was contended on the documentary evidence, that it must have been so, and that it was not "gradual." The Subordinate Judge recorded findings in the affirmative in the first part of each of the above issues, and in the negative on the second part of each. He made a decree as prayed.

Upon an appeal to the High Court, the learned judges (Ayling and Srinivasa Aiyangar JJ.) affirmed the findings of the trial judge, and after a consideration of the law of accretion in relation to the facts of the case, dismissed the appeal. Ayling J. in the course of his judgment said "The nucleus of the suit lanka is not an island formed vertically in the bed of the Godavari, but an accretion to plaintiffs pre-existing Voota Chiguru lanka, formed in 1883, and severed from the latter about four years later. I do not think we should be justified in refusing to recognise plaintiffs title to the land thus formed on the ground of the comparative rapidity with which the formation took place. No doubt the reported decisions of the English Courts would seem to indicate that they would refuse to treat such a formation as an a