Special Appeal from the decision of Mr. C. Mackay, Principal Sudder Ameen of Sylhet, dated 25th November 1856, reversing a decree of Moulvee Moteeoor Ruhman, Moonsiff of Latoo, dated 12th April 1856. RAMLOCHUN SURMA AND OTHERS, (PLAINTIFFS,) APPELLANTS, versus MOHESHRAM DASS AND OTHERS, (DEFENDANTS,) Vakeels of Appellants—Mr. R. T. Allan and Baboo Kishenkishore Vakeels of Respondents-Moulvee Syed Murhamut Hossein and THIS case was admitted to special appeal on the 16th November 1857, under the following certificate recorded by Messrs. A. Sconce and J. S. Torrens. Held that the words "though it is admitted," which appear ameen and in the decision of the principal sudder which are inconsistent with the latter part of his decision and opposed to of the defend the answer "This was a suit to recover possession of land, on the ground that it was originally the property of plaintiffs and settled with them in the collectorate after resumption, but that defendants had ejected plaintiffs from it. The principal sudder ameen in dismissing plaintiffs' (petitioners') suit says: I am clearly of opinion that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish their claim by clear and satisfactory proofs, because, in the first place, though it is admitted that, previous to their obtaining a bundobust of the land sued for from the collector, it was in their possession for ages, as lakhiraj, yet they are unable to produce a single kubooleut or jumma-wasil- neously; and bakee paper in proof of such possession.' And again-on the whole that, as plainthere is not sufficient or satisfactory proof that the land sued for ble to prove appertains to the potta held by plaintiffs, and that they held their previous possession of the same." "Special appellant urges that the umulnama before the principal sudder ameen had distinctly shown the lands to have been held by the plaintiffs, under the settlement made by the collector; and as it would appear that there is an inconsistency in the principal sudder ants were written erro tiffs were una possession and forcible eject ment from the the decision of the principal dismissing lands claimed, sudder ameen, the suit, was correct. ameen's decision as above given, in one place admitting the settle- Judgment. The expression "though it is admitted" made use of in the principal sudder ameen's decision, appears to be a mistake, for such expression renders the former part of his finding inconsistent with the latter; and moreover, in the pleadings there is no such admission on the part of the defendants, that previous to settlement the lands were in the possession of the plaintiffs for ages. They merely state that the lands now claimed were, by the collusion of the plaintiffs, measured as part of the nankar lands, but on the defendants' application to the deputy collector, they being found to belong to the defendants' estate, were given up. The word admit, has perhaps been erroneously employed for contend. Plaintiffs have been unable to prove forcible ejectment as pleaded, and the potta under which they claim cannot, as against the defendants, who were not parties to the suit in which the nankar lands were resumed, be considered as conclusive proof of their rights, unless they can at the same time show their previous possession. We find no grounds for interfering with the decision of the lower court, and dismiss the appeal, with costs. Special Appeal from the decision of Mr. C. Mackay, Principal Sudder Ameen of Sylhet, dated 25th November 1856, reversing a dercee of Moulvee Moteeoor Ruhman, Moonsiff of Latoo, dated 12th April 1856. RAMLOCHUN SURMA AND OTHERS, (PLAINTIFFS,) APPELLANTS, versus SHEIK ZEKEE alias MAHOMED ZEKÈE AND OTHERS, Vakeels of Appellants-Mr. R. T. Allan and Baboo Kishenkishore Ghose. Vakeels of Respondents-Moulvee Mahomed Ismail. FOR grounds of admission to special appeal and decision of the See the Court thereon, see preceding case No. 869. Regular Appeals from the decision of Moulveë Syed Ahmed Buksh, Principal Sudder Ameen of Mymensing, dated 24th December 1855. CASE NO. 111 OF 1856. AND LUKHEEMONEE DEBEA CHOWDRAIN, MOTHER versus ULUKHMONEE DEBEA, MOTHER AND GUARDIAN OF HUR- AND OTHERS, (Defendants,) RESPONDENTS. MINORS, Vakeel of Appellant-Baboo Ramapersaud Roy. Vakeels of Respondents-Moonshee Ameer Alee and Baboo Kishenkishore Ghose. SUIT laid at Company's rupees 6,867-13-8. D above. Judgment of lower court, in dismissal of appellants' suits as barred affirmed in appeal. CASE NO. 114 OF 1856. GOLUCKMONEE DEBEA CHOWDRAIN AND OTHERS, (PLAINTIFFS,) APPELLANTS, versus ULUCKHMONEE DEBEA CHOWDRAIN AND OTHERS, Vakeel of Appellants-Baboo Gobindchunder Mookerjee. SUIT laid at Company's rupees 5,354-14-5. CASE NO. 147 OF 1856. BHOOBUNMOYE DEBEA CHOWDRAIN, KALEEKISHORE versus ULUCKHMONEE DEBEA CHOWDRAIN, MOTHER AND Vakeels of Appellants-Baboos Bungserbuddun Mitter and Vakeels of Respondents--Moonshee Ameer Alee and Baboo SUIT laid at Company's rupees 7,440. These appeals are on the part of the proprietors of a 12 annas share of Allap Singh, who, as plaintiffs, sued the defendants, the 4 annas shareholders, for a moiety of the lands of chuck Shamramby limitation, pore. We are told that the lands in question are newly farmed lands, for which resumption proceedings were instituted, but the lands released; and disputes having commenced between the 12 annas and the 4 annas shareholders, the latter endeavouring to hold possession of the entire chuck, a case under Act IV. of 1840 was the consequence, and the plaintiffs ousted from possession by order of the magistrate. This suit was then instituted to recover possession; and the principal sudder ameen has dismissed it as barred by limitation. The appellants take exception to the lower court's judgment on this point, on the ground that the principal sudder ameen has not calculated the period of limitation from the date of the magistrate's order, but from a date anterior to it, when some proceedings were held relative to demanding mochulkas from the parties concerned; that the foujdaree decision has been followed and adopted by the lower court, while that decision is not based on previous possession but on the recognised right of the defendants to have possession of the lands such a finding therefore can be no guide to the determination of the point of limitation in the present actions. Appellants also refer to the evidence filed by thein on the record, consisting of kubooleuts and the depositions of persons who speak to their possession up to the order of the magistrate in the Act IV. case. We find that the Act IV. case was commenced under orders of the magistrate, on complaints preferred before him on the part of the resident ryots and cultivators, on the 2nd of October 1841: the rival proprietors were then called upon to produce their proofs, and the magistrate, on the documents filed by the defendants, held their possession to be fully established, and, on the 27th April 1842, decreed the case in their favour. The principal sudder ameen has entered very fully into the nature and effect of the proofs then set forth by both parties, and remarks that no documentary evidence has been brought forward by the plaintiffs to refute that supplied by the defendants in support of their rights, and that oral evidence of witnesses is insufficient for the purpose. He therefore considered that plaintiffs had shewn no good grounds of objection to the finding of the magistrate under Act IV. of 1840, and had failed to establish possession at any time within the prescribed period. We see no reason to differ from the conclusions of the lower court. The plaintiff's brought their actions in the following order, from date of the magistrate's decision maintaining the defendants in possession of the lands. Case No. 111 was instituted after 11 years, 11 months, and 1 day. Case No. 114 after 11 years, 11 months, and 25 days, and Case No. 147 after 11 years, 11 months and 29 days. The date of the magistrate's order is, however, no starting point for the plaintiffs in calculating limitation, as the proceeding before that officer and the judgment passed thereon show, prima fucie, that the plaintiffs were not the parties in possession when the disputes arose. Plaintiffs are therefore clearly bound to show, if dating their dispossession from the magistrate's order of the 27th April 1842, that he decided against them on erroneous grounds. This they are unable to do, so far as the magistrate's own proceedings are concerned, and they have in this suit only filed some kubooleuts and examined some witnesses to prove their possession when the order was passed. This however is not the sort of proof on which the Court can safely rely; and we can give to it no weight in refutation of the facts found by the magistrate. There is only one other matter which has been pleaded by the appellants, namely, that Lukheemonee Debea, the plaintiff in Case No. 111, and Bhoobunmoyee Chowdrain, plaintiff in Case No. 147, assert that they have brought their respective suits as guardians |