P L D 1966 Dacca 112 (PLP)

Plaintiff instituted a suit in the year 1946 for declaration of his title to certain plots of land and for recovery of possession in respect of the same, some portion of which was alluvial land formed on a dried up river bed. Learned Munsif, who tried the suit, decreed the same against the contesting defendants and against certain defendants on compromise, and ex parte against the rest. Against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif some of the defendants preferred an appeal which was heard and disposed of by a learned Subordinate Judge. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Thereupon the said defendants preferred an appeal which was heard and disposed of by a single Bench of this Court, which affirmed the decree passed by the Courts below, except in respect of the three plots of land as specified in the plaint itself, namely, plots Nos. 653, 651 and

30. It was argued before the aforesaid Bench in this Court that the defence evidence with regard to the said plots was corroborated by a kabuliyat produced by the defendants, namely, that which has been marked as Exh. E. This document was further corroborated by entries in the settlement record which has been marked as Exh. K. This Court directed that the appeal be reheard by 'the appellate Court .below only in respect of plots Nos. 653, 651 and

30. The rest of the decree, as stated above, was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed with regard to plots other than those mentioned above. The appeal was re‑heard by a Subordinate Judge of Faridpur. Learned Subordinate Judge, after discussing the relevant evidence in this case, came to the conclusion that defendant's evidence with regard to the aforesaid three plots was corroborated both by the registered kabuliyat marked Exh. E and by the registered patta marked Exh. F. Furthermore, he also found that there was further corroboration in the entries made in the settlement records marked as Exh. K in this case. He, therefore, allowed the appeal in respect of the aforesaid three plots and dismissed plaintiff's claim with regard to them. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff. At the hearing of this appeal I was taken through the judgment pronounced by the appellate Court below as well as some portion of the judgment passed by the trial Court and also the relevant evidence in this case. Learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant has argued, in the first place, that the aforesaid settlement record, namely, Exh. K, mentions only two plots, namely, plots Nos. 653 and 651 and does not, contain any reference to plot No.

30. It transpires that this argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant is based on a document which was made over to learned counsel himself on behalf of the appellant. On an examination of Exh. K, which is the original document, as incorporated in the records of this case, it transpires that the aforesaid three plots, namely, plots Nos. 653, 651 and 30, have been stated therein. There is, therefore, no substance in this point. Learned counsel has next urged that the area of plot No. 30 has not been specified either in the kabuliyat, namely Exh. E, or in the settlement record, that is, Exh. K. This is so. But the answer to it is that as plot No. 30 was substantially submerged at the time when the settlement record was prepared and when the aforesaid kabuliyat was executed, it was not possible to give the exact measurement of the said plot. This point also has no substance. The appellate Court below has preferred the evidence given on behalf of the defendants to that adduced by the plaintiff. It has accepted defendant's evidence because of the corroboration it has received in the manner stated above. It is, therefore, clear that plaintiff‑appellant has not succeeded in showing that, even the appraisal of the evidence by the appellate Court below was wrong in this behalf. The appeal fails on the points canvassed before me. The result, therefore, is, that this appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. S. Q. Appeal dismissed.