JUDGMENT

1. Touzi No. 523 of the Murshidabad Collectorate, which comprised pergunah Goas, was permanently settled in 1793 on the basis of the decennial settlement of 1789. It consisted of twelve huddas, each hudda being sub-divided into several tarafs of collection of villages. We are in this appeal concerned with village Udaynagore in taraf Udaynagore which is in hudda Ikuri. In 1799 Raja Debi Singh purchased the said touzi or zemindary at a sale for recovery of arrears of revenue. The zemindary ultimately devolved by succession on his descendant Raja Gopal Singh, Krishna Chandra Singh and Earn Chandra Singh. At a partition in or about the year 1830, Earn Chandra Singh got in his eight annas odd share six out of the twelve huddas, including hudda Ikuri. On 8th April 1836 he granted patni taluks of two mehals, to one Radhabullav Mukho-padhya (ex. 6 b(1), B 148). The first mehal, which comprised taraf Udaynagore with. some exceptions, was let out at an annual patni rent of Rs. 1852-0-11 (sicca = = Rs. 1975-8-1 in company's coin) and the second mehal called Hat Jelangi at an annual patni rent of Rs. 1201 (sicca - Rs. 1281-1-0 in company's coin). Radhabullav Mukhopadhya sold his patni interest on 22nd November 1839 to John & Robert Watson (Messrs. Robert Watson & Co.) (Ex.7-B 144). Robert Watson & Co. in turn sold the same along with other -properties to Messrs. Robert Watson & Co. Ltd., on 20th May 1890 (Ex. 27, B 272.) The latter conveyed the same to one Crawford on 29th November 1902 (Ex. 27 (a), B 379) who in turn sold the same to the Midnapore Zemindary Co. Ltd., the plaintiff in the suit, on 3rd December 1906 (Ex. 27 (b), B 408). The zemindary interest in the aforesaid six huddas of touzi No. 523 devolved in the following, manner. From Ram Chandra Singh it passed to Robert Watson, James Dalrymple and John Watson Laidley and then to James Dalrymple and John Watson Laidley (Ex. 26, c 838). The successors-in-interest of James Dalrymple and John Watson Laidley sold the same to Rai Bishunchand and Rai Budh Singh Dhudhuria, the predecessors of the contesting defendants, on 22nd June 1893 (Ex. 27 (c); B 285). For the purpose of deciding some of the controversies we will have to consider in some detail some of the aforesaid conveyances. In 1850-54 there was a. revenue survey of villages Udaynagore and the other adjoining villages. The revenue survey map is Ex. 28 (19) (Map No. 22, M (1).) The position of the following river Padma is shown in that map. In 1867-68 the revenue authorities again surveyed the locality and prepared a map, Ex. 28 (12) (Map No. 15 M (1) ). This map and other maps prepared at this survey will hereafter be called the Diara maps of 1867-68 and the proceedings for assessment of revenue based on the said survey of 1867-68 as the Diara proceedings of 1869.

2. The Diara maps of 1867-68 indicated that a good portion of what had been shown in the revenue survey of 1850-54 to be dry lands and appertaining to touzi No. 523 had gone under the river bed, and a large block of land had emerged out of bed of the river as it flowed in 1850-54, the river having since then moved further east at the place. Proceedings were accordingly taken by the Government to assess to revenue what appeared to be "added lands" on a comparison of the diara survey of 1867-68 with revenue survey maps of 1850-54. Objections were filed by Messrs. Robert Watson & Co., as patnidars and by Sreenarayan and Hari-mohan Bagchis, patnidars of two other mouzas, Poreshpore and Ramnarayanpore also appertaining to touzi No. 523. It is unnecessary to detail the nature of those objections which mainly related to the correctness of the boundaries between the different mouzas of the said estate as laid down by the Diara survey amin. Those objections were considered by the Survey Deputy Collector, Mr. Bhagaban Chandra Sen, who recorded his findings in his Robokari of 26th August 1869 (Ex. F; B 191). He gave effect to some of the objections, and directed sketch map