The nature of the title to a property is not affected by the circumstance that it is held from the Crown under a periodical settlement, and the entitlement to mesne profits can be established based on exclusive possession.

JUDGMENT

Mookerjee, J. - The subject matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal is a tract of land, of 1,700 bighas in area, formed by the recession of the river Padma. The case for the plaintiff was that the disputed land was reformation in situ of an estate wherein he had a share of 5 annas 16 gundas 2 haras and 2 krant, He alleged that although his title to the property was declared in a previous litigation and he was placed in possession in execution of the decree made therein, he was subsequently dispossessed by virtue of an order made u/s 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He consequently asked for declaration of his title as well as a decree for possession and mesne profits.

2. The contesting; defendants resisted the claim on a variety of grounds, namely, first, that the Court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the litigation; secondly, that whatever the title of the plaintiff might be, he could have no cause of action till the expiry of the settlement already obtained by the defendants from the Revenue authorities; thirdly, that the suit was barred by limitation; fourthly, that no partition could be effected by the Civil Court, and fifthly, that in any event, the plaintiff was not entitled to a decree for mesne profits inasmuch as the defendants did not exceed their rights as coparceners.

3. The Subordinate Judge overruled these contentions and gave the plaintiff a decree for possession and mesne profits.

4. On the present appeal, the decree of the Subordinate Judge has been assailed on five grounds; viz., first, that the trial Court had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the litigation; secondly, that as the plaintiff had not obtained settlement from the Revenue authorities, he had no enforceable cause of action; thirdly, that the claim was barred under Art. 45 of the schedule to the Indian Limitation Act inasmuch as it had not been instituted within three years from the date of last settlement with the defendants; fourthly, that in view of the nature of the property no partition thereof could be effected by the Civil Court; and fifthly, that no decree for mesne profits could be made in favour of the plaintiff. In our opinion, none of these contentions can be sustained.

5. As regards the first point, it appears that on the 10th March 1876 a notification was issued by the Government of Bengal which defined the river Padma as the boundary between the districts of Rajshahi and Nadia. The ease for the plaintiff is that at the date of the institution of the suit, i.e., on the 22nd March 1916, the disputed property lay towards the north of the main channel of the Padma and was consequently within the jurisdiction of the district Court at Rajshahi. The case for the contesting defendants on the other hand is that the prorerty lay towards the south of the main channel and was consequently within that jurisdiction of the district Court at Nadia. The Subordinate Judge has found that although the property lay towards the south of one of the channels of the Padma, that channel was not the main but only a subsidiary channel and that consequently the trial Court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the litigation. No materials have been placed before us to show that the conclusion of the Court below was in fact erroneous. Indeed, as no map has been prepared in this case, it is impossible for us to say whether the channel which lay towards the north of the disputed land was the main channel or a subsidiary channel of the river. We are, therefore, not in a position to dissent from the view taken by the Subordinate Judge. It may further be observed that in view of the provisions of sections 18 and 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, the contention of the defendants cannot possibly prevail; even if it be assumed that it is doubtful whether the property lay within the jurisdiction of the Rajshahi Court or the Nadia Court the decree of the Subordinate Judge cannot be set aside, as it has been neither s