JUDGMENT

1. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 84 and the plaintiff No. 35 are proprietors of the permanently settled revenue paying estates Nos, 1763 and 1764 respactively on the revenue roll of the Bakarganj C(sic)torate. The plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 34 are also lessees of the estate No. 1764 under a patta from the thirty-fifth plaintiff. The two estates together constitute the Zamindari of Pargana Dakhin Sahabazpur, Estate No. 1763 and the lease-hold are, in the management of a Manager under the Court of Wards and this suit is brought by him on behalf of the plaintiff,? Nos, I to 34 and by the plaintiff No. 35. The subject-matter of this suit are two island churs at present known by the names of Char Botham and Chur Harikishore and certain lands described in schedule A to the plaint. The question is, are these lands re-formations of, the plaintiff's permanently settled estates as the plaintiffs allege, or are the two churs new formations in a navigable river and the; other lands ascretions to the permanently, settled estate assessable to additional revenue. The land settled was, a-j we have said, Pargana Dakhin Sahabazpur. As regards the northern and the southern boundaries of the Pargana there is no dispute. As regards the west, the plaintiffs say that the Pargana was bordered by the Batua River. The respondent says that it was bounded by other settled estates.

2. The question in dispute is, where is the eastern boundary of this parmanently eastern, estate. It is undisputed that the eastern boundary of the settled Pargana was the western bank of the river Sahabazpur. The question is, whether the a western bank of Sahabazpur river as it was at the time of Permanent Settlement and as depicted in Rennell's map forma the eastern boundary of the Pargana. It is both parties' case that the western bank of the Sahabazpur river is the eastern boundary and the point to be decided is, where was that war tern bank at the, time of the Permanent Settlement. We have to deicide whether the lands in suit fall within the boundaries of the estate in respect of which the plaintiffs hays been paying revenue to Government.

3. It is necessary, particularly with reference to the issue of res judicata, to give a short resume of the previous history on the subject, and with reference to the objection that there has been an abatement or remission of the original revenue consequent on the reduction of the area, to give a abort previous history of the Pargana.

4. In the year 1847, two churs, named Bhasan Tezamaddi and Dampier, formed in the Sahabazpur river. In the year 1880-81 there was a Dears Survey and the Deara Superintendent of Surveys took possession of there two islands on behalf of Government. Ha disallowed the respondents' contention that these churs were re-formations on the Rites of their diluviated permanently settled lands and that the sites were dry lands according to Rennell's map of 1764-73 at the time of the Permanent Settlement. He relied on Kelso's map whish was prepared in 1847 48 and held that the churs were new formations on the bed of a navigable river and belonged to Government. The respondents who objected to the decision claimed them as being within their eastern boundary. The decision of the Deara Superintendent was in 1888 and was, as we have said, based upon Kelso's map which he held showed that the lands in question lay outside the boundary of the permanently settled estate. An appeal was made to the Commissioner by the respondents and the Commissioner in his order of the 26th Marsh 1884, after stating that Rennell's map showed that shortly before the Permanent Settlement where the lands had re-formed was part of Sahabazpur and, that subsequent to the Permanent Settlement the Pargana suffered severely from diluvion all along its eastern face as was shown by a comparison of Kelso's and Tasin's map with that of Rennell, expressed his opinion that the lands were clearly re-formations of the appellant's permanently settled estate and reversed