Babu Raghunath Prasad Singh and others vs Rameshwar Singh Bahadur and Ram Bishen Singh and others

Das, J.—The only point which arises in this appeal is, whether the Revenue Survey line showing the boundary between the plaintiff''s Mouzah Bhowa Parwal and the defendants, Mouzah Nagrah as laid by the Revenue Survey authorities on the cadastral survey map of Bhowa Parwal is binding upon the defendants. It appears that, in the course of the cadastral survey, there arose a a boundary dispute between the parties sometime in 1905. The parties agreed that the Revenue Survey boundary line should be the boundary between the two mouzahs.

They filed a petition before the Survey authorities, asking that the boundary between the two mouzahs "may be fixed according to the Revenue Survey map of Mouzah Bhowa Parwal of 1846 and of Mouzah Baijnathpur Jaidev otherwise called Nagrah of 1847." The documents show that the Assistant Superintendent of Surveys laid the boundary according to the compromise between the parties. The decision of the Assistant Superintendent of Surveys is dated the 6th February, 1905, and the proceedings show that the line was actually laid according to the Revenue Survey map of the two mouzahs and in the presence of the parties.

Mr. Sultan Ahmad on behalf of the defendants-appellants, has urged before us that his clients are undoubtedly bound by their consent to the effect that the Revenue Survey maps should decide the question between them : but he argues that he has never consented to accept the boundary line as laid down by the Survey authorities as correctly representing the Revenue Survey boundary line.

Now the whole object of the proceedings of 1905 was to end the dispute between the parties as to the boundaries of their villages; and, in my opinion, the consent of the defendants amounted to this, that they bound themselves to regard the boundary line as laid by the Survey authorities as conclusive between the parties. This is the view of the learned Subordinate Judge, and in my opinion that view is correct.

But the point still arises whether the defendants 11 and 12 are bound by the decision of the Survey authorities. It appears that they are recent purchasers and that their predecessor-in-title having a one anna share in the Mouzah was not a party to the petition which was filed before the Assistant Superintendent of Surveys. It is urged by Mr. Sultan Ahmad that so far as the defendants 11 and 12 are concerned, they are entitled to dispute the correctness of the line as laid down by the Survey authorities.

It appears, however, that they do not claim any proprietary title to the soil. In the partition proceedings which took place between the co-sharers of Mouzah Nagrah, they were allotted Touzi No. 3294 which lies to the south of the Mouzah. In their written statement they do not put forward any title to the actual soil but then they say that they have got a right of ferry. No doubt it is open to them to challenge the title of the plaintiff to the soil, but then the plaintiff produces the decision of the Revenue authorities, based on the compromise between all the co-owners, who are interested in the soil. That being so, it is not open to them to challenge the decision, based as it was, on the compromise between the parties who had the title to the soil.

In my opinion the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct and must be affirmed.

I would dimiss this appeal with costs.

Adami, J.

I agree.