Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The pleadings are sufficiently set out in the judgment to be pronounced by my learned brother and I shall not, therefore, repeat them in detail. Numerous questions were argued in this appeal, but I think it necessary to consider" and decide only the following as the other questions would fall to be considered only if I had decided the questions 2 to 4 against the plaintiffs. The questions I propose to consider are,--

(1) Is the river Krishna a public navigable river at the place where the plaintiffs five villages abut on the river?

(2) Are the plaintiffs, as riparian proprietors, entitled to the bed of the river Krishna up to the mid stream so far as it runs along side the villages of Pedapulipaka, Chodavaram, Madduru, Royyuru and Vallur?

(3) Apart from their right as riparian proprietors, did the plaintiffs predecessors-in title acquire the ownership of the river-bed by reason of the grant made by the Government at the time of the Permanent Settlement?

(4) Have the plaintiffs acquired title to the river bed in question by reason of exclusive possession or enjoyment?

(5) Are the plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits, as claimed in paragraph 28(c) of the plaint, and, if so, what is the amount to be awarded?

2. The river Krishna is tidal and navigable for a distance of eight miles from above the place where it falls into the sea. Beyond the said eight miles it ceases to be tidal but it is navigable for about five months in the year between June and November for a length of about fifty eight miles up to the Bezwada anicut. The lands in dispute lie in a portion of this length commencing from about three and a-half miles below the anicut and have been raised from the river-bed by the deliberate reclamation operations carried on by the Government (acting under the powers given to the Government by the Rivers Conservancy, Madras, Act, No. VI of 1884), the reclamations having taken place between 1897 and 1912.

3. The plaintiffs contention is that the breadth of the river-bed has always been apportioned between the villages on both banks as portions of the areas of the villages themselves and that the 700 odd acres in dispute raised from the river-bed formed part of the plaintiffs five Zemindary villages even before the levels of the lands were so raised up. The suit was laid in ejectment of the Government who, having entered upon the lands for the purpose of doing Conservancy operations under the Statute (which does not allow of interference with the plaintiffs enjoyment as owners except to the extent necessary to carry on the Conservancy operations), illegally dispossessed them from the lands in 1911.

4. The literal meaning of the word navigable seems to be, "affording facilities for steering ships through." Facilities for passage of large river crafts which may not be capable of rising to the dignity of ships seem to be generally considered sufficient to call a river, affording such facilities, a "navigable!" river. The legal presumption governing the ownership in the beds of the navigable portions of rivers have been elaborately argued before us. As regards the portion of a riverbed where a river is both tidal and navigable, there is of course, a very strong presumption that it belongs to the Grown. The river bed portion we have to deal with in this ease lies in the length of the river which is non tidal and hence the difficulty. As I said already, the river is not navigable during at least half the year. Lankas and keelankas (miniature peninsulas bounded by the river bank) are formed after each flood and changes in the formation and area of old lankas take place almost every year in the length under dispute. Can the river portion be called " navigable " in the legal sense under the circumstances? If it is non-navigable in the legal sense, the Full Bench decision in Vasireddi Venkata Lakshmi Narasamma v. Secretary of State for India 47 Ind. Cas. 606 : 41 M. 840 : 35 M.L.J. 159 : (1918) M.W.N. 662 (F.B.) applies,