JUDGMENT

1. The subject-matter of the litigation, which has resulted in this appeal, consists of a large tract of land, included in a ckur formed in the bed of the river Ganges, called also Kirti Nasha, in the District of Faridpur. The land is described in the plaint as comprised within three sets of boundaries which constitute three distinct parcels ka, Kha, ga. The areas of the parcels were stated approximately in the plaint as 10 kanis (=90 bighas), 3 drones (=432 bighas) and 15 1/2 drones (=2232 bighas) respectively. On measurement, however, the aggregate area of the first two parcels has turned out to be 347 bighas, and the area of the third plot 4221 bighas. The case for the plaintiffs is that the disputed lands are included in estate No. 5603 of the Faridpur Collectorate, held in patni by them under the proprietors. They allege that the lands are partly re-formation on the site of, and partly accretion to three mouzas Bhaga Chur, Chur Datali, and Chur Lasti also called Chur Bhaga. The churs were measured in the course of thak proceedings in the year 1859 and were subsequently measured by way of survey during the following year. The plaintiffs further assort that in 1879, as a consequence of a dispute about the possession of some of the lands of these iliurs, a suit was instituted by their prede-cessors-in-interest against persons now represented by the defendants. In the course of this litigation, it is said, the lands were measured, and a decree made by consent of parties. The plaintiffs found their title to the disputed lands on the thak map of 1859, the survey map of 1860 and the consent decree in the suit of 1879. The immediate occasion for the institution of this suit is stated to be a dispute as to the possession of the land which culminated in a proceeding u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The dispute related to plot ka and kha and an intervening strip of land. The Magistrate held; on the 8th March 1905, with regard to plots Ito and Ma that neither of the disputants was in possession, and accordingly made an order for attachment u/s 146 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As regards plot ga, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants wrongfully took possession of it on its re-appearance in 1899 after diluvion. The plaintiffs on these allegations pray for declaration of their title to the disputed lands by way of re-formation on the original site of, and contiguous accretion to, the three motizas Bhaga Chur, Chur Datali and Cliur Lastias eomprisedwithin the thak and survey boundary lines, and within the lines of the decree in the suit of 1879; the plaintiffs also claim title by adverse possession for the statutory period. They seek to recover possession by ejectment of the defendants as trespassers and claim mesne profits as also the sum in the custody of the Collector as the surplus profits of the land attached by the Magistrate. The defendants resist the claim, on the ground that the plaintiffs have no title in the disputed lands, and that, if they had any title, it has been extinguished by operation of the law of limitation. The defendants may be grouped into two classes: one set claims part of the lands as included in mama Nemua, also called Sakhipura, which appertains to estates No. 996-67; the other set claims a portion of the lands as included within mouza Tarabunia comprised in estate No. 9670. The proprietors of Sakhipura also repudiate the consent decree in the litigation of 1879 as not conclusive upon the question now in controversy. The Subordinate Judge has, upon an examination of the voluminous evidence on record, both oral and documentary, decreed the claim in part. He has found in substance that the thak line has not been correctly delineated by the amin and cannot consequently be made the foundation for a decree he has also found that the survey line has been correctly delineated by the amin and was inaccurately relaid on the map prepared in the suit of 1879; but he has held that the parties are b