Back
1963 Supreme(Pat) 127
PATNA HIGH COURT
R.K.Choudhary and A.B.N.Sinha JJ.
Punit Rai
Versus
Mohammad Majid
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 54 of 1956 ;
Letter Patent Appeal No. 43 of 1959 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 17, 1963
The gradual accretion of land to an existing estate, as governed by Section 4 of Bengal Regulation 11 of 1825, results in the ownership of the accreted land vesting with the owner of the original estate, regardless of whether the accreted land can be demarcated or identified as belonging to another proprietor.
Headnote:
ACCRETION - TITLE TO ACCRETED LAND - JURISDICTION - PUSHATA WALL - INTERPRETATION OF BENGAL REGULATION 11 OF 1825, SEC. 4 - GRADUAL ACCRETION VS. REFORMATION IN SITU - OWNERSHIP OF ACCRETED LANDS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, representing Yatimkhana Anjuman Khadimul Islam, Patna City, filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over 10 bighas of land, claiming it as an accretion to its existing plots. The defendants contested the claim, asserting sudden reformation in situ and lack of jurisdiction in the Patna Civil Court. The trial court and the lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions, rejecting the defendants' arguments. It held that the plaintiff's title to the plots in question was not denied in the pleadings and could not be disputed based on evidence adduced during the trial. The court also found that the suit land was within the jurisdiction of the Patna Civil Court and that the existence of a pushta wall did not negate the gradual accretion process.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had established its title to the disputed land. 2. Whether the Patna Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. Whether the existence of a pushta wall prevented the accretion of land to the plaintiff's plots.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff's title to the plots in question was not denied in the pleadings and could not be disputed based on evidence adduced during the trial. It relied on Order VIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires specific denial of facts alleged by the plaintiff. 2. The court found that the suit land was within the jurisdiction of the Patna Civil Court based on the evidence presented, including maps and the District Gazetteer. It rejected the defendants' argument that the surveyors had transgressed their limit in extending the southern boundary of a village into the Patna district. 3. The court interpreted Section 4 of Bengal Regulation 11 of 1825, which governs accretion and diluvion. It held that the first paragraph of the section applies to cases of gradual accretion, where the accreted land becomes the property of the owner of the land to which it is annexed. The second paragraph applies to cases of sudden change of course of a river, where the identity of the land is preserved and it remains the property of its original owner.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed both appeals filed by the defendants, upholding the lower courts' decisions in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was awarded costs payable by the appellants.
1. Both these appeals arise out of the same suit. The plaintiff is the Secretary of an institution known as Yatimkhana Anjuman Khadimul Islam, Patna City. He instituted the suit, out of which these two appeals arise, on behalf of the institution, for declaration of its title to and for confirmation or, in the alternative, recovery of posession over about 10 Bighas of land described at the foot of the plaint by letters A, B, C and D. The claim of the plaintiff is that municipal plots Nos. 407, 408, 409 and 410 of ward No. 26, within Patna Municipal Corporation, having an area of 1 Bigha 5 Kathas, belonged to it, and the suit land, measuring about 10 bighas, lying adjacent north of these plots, has vested in it as having been annexed to them by gradual and imperceptible accretion. As the defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had to institute the suit for the reliefs stated above. The suit was mainly contested by defendants 11 to 13 and defendants 14 and 15. Both sets of the defendants filed separate written statements, but their pleas in defence were practically the same. Their picas, so far as are relevant for the purposes of these appeals, are that the lands had come out of the water suddenly and it was a case of reformation in situ, and that the lands lie in the district of Muzaffarpur and the Civil Court a Patna had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Courts below rejected these pleas and, accepting the case of the plaintiff, decreed the suit. At the trial it was further contended by these defendants that the plaintiff had no title to plots Nos. 407 to 410 and, therefore, the plaintiff did not acquire any title over the suit land. The Courts below held that the plaintiff had title over plots Nos. 408 to 410 and a portion of plot No. 407. They therefore, held that the plaintiff was entitled to the accreted land. Defendant No. 14 preferred a second appeal in this Court, being Second Appeal No. 34 of 1956 and defendants 11 and 12 filed a separate second appeal, being Second No. 54 of 1956. Second Appeal No. 34 of 1956 was heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and was dismissed on the 18th February, 1959. Leave for appeal under the Letters Patent was granted, and defendant No. 14 has filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 43 of 1959. Second Appeal No. 54 of 1956 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 43 of 1959 have, therefore, been heard together as the questions at issue in both the cases are the same, and this judgment will govern them both.
2. Mr. Sharma has appeared for the appellant in L. P. A. No. 43 of 1959 and Mr. T. K. Prasad has appeared for the appellants in Second Appeal No. 54 of 1956. Both of them have advanced separate arguments, but the points raised in their arguments are practically the same.
3. Three points have been raised by Counsel for the appellants in support of their case. They are:
(1) The plaintiff has not established its title to a portion of plot No. 407 and. as such, the lands accreting to that portion of plot No. 407 could not belong to the plaintiff.
(2) The Patna Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
(3) To the north of plot Nos, 407 to 410, there is a Pushta wall and, as such, the alluviated lands could not be said to have accreted to the lands lying to the south of the Pushta wall.
4. So far as the first point, namely, that the plaintiff has not established its title to a portion of Plot No. 407, is concerned, it may be noted that the title of the plaintiff was not denied in the written statements filed by the appellants of the two appeals. The plaintiff clearly stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint that its own lands bearing municipal survey plots Nos. 407, 403, 409 and 410 in Ward No. 26, Sheet No. 242, the area whereof is about 1 bigha 5 kathas. The defendants 11 to 13 did not deny in their written statement the correctness of the averment made by the plaintiff referred to above. Defendants 14 and 15, however, in paragraph 7 of their written statement
