Lord Buckmaster:-

The river Ganges in its course through the district of Dacca rests so uneasily in its bed, that its boundaries can never at any moment be defined with the certainty that their limitation will be long observed. Frequently the river leaves its course, flows over large tracts of land, leaving other areas bare, and then again its waters recede, giving back the lands submerged in whole or in part to use and cultivation. It is obvious that difficulties as to ownership must arise in these circumstances, and of the extent and complication of these difficulties, the present case affords an excellent illustration. The general law that is applicable is free from doubt. The bed of a public navigable river is the property of the Government, though the banks may be the subject of private ownership. If there be slow accretion to the land on either side, due, for instance, to the gradual accumulation of silt, this forms part of the estate of the riparian owner to whose bank the accretion has been made. (See Regulation XI of 1825). If private property be submerged and subsequently again left bare by the water, it belongs to the original owner, Lopez v. Muddun Mohun Thakoor [1870] 13 M. I. A. 467 = 14 W.R. 11 = 5 B.L.R 52 = 2 Sar. 594 = 2 Suther 336 (P.C.). It is the latter circumstance that the appellants allege has happened in the present case, but the burden of proving the facts necessary to establish the original ownership rests upon them and it is the difficulty of this proof, rather than the difficulty of applying the law, that has caused the differences of opinion between the Subordinate Judge and the High Court, from whom this appeal is brought.

The appellants are together entitled to two estates in the district of Dacca. The first, is the Zemindari of Patpasha, and is No. 115 on the revenue rolls, and the second is the Taluk of Char Madhabdia, and was formerly No. 160, and is now No. 4002, on the revenue rolls of Faridpur. These estates bound a branch of the Ganges on each side at the place material to this suit, and the appellants, who are severally interested in certain undivided shares in these estates, claim that a large tract of land formerly under water forms part of their property. This claim has throughout been disputed by the Government, and to establish their rights four suits were instituted by four sets of plaintiffs, who together own the estates, the Secretary of State for India and the three other sets of plaintiffs being defendants in each suit. The Subordinate Judge decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. From this decree the Secretary of State appealed to the High Court, who set aside the decrees of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the suits. From the judgment of the High Court the present appeals have been brought. They have been consolidated, and in speaking of the appellants their Lordships throughout intend to refer to the parties, who together formed the original plaintiffs and their representatives, and by the respondent they mean only the Secretary of State for India in Council.

Although many witnesses were called, for the purposes of this appeal, their testimony was of no real consequence; the arguments of counsel both for the appellants and the respondents being rightly confined to the true effect of the evidence furnished by three sets of documents, upon which the appellants rely, and upon certain circumstances about which there is no dispute. The first of these documents is a plan referred to throughout as "Rennel's map." This was made by Major Rennel as part of a survey which was conducted by him between the years 1764 and 1773. The respondent gives reasons for suggesting that this particular map relates to a survey made in 1764, and their Lordships, for the purposes of the present appeal, are prepared to accept that date. The map itself does not purport to give the boundaries of different mouzahs, nor indeed to define their position with any exactness. It appears that it was prepared rather