Shaikh Mahamud Alam vs Nathu Sahu and Others

Ross, J.—The only ground urged in support of this appeal is that there is no evidence to justify the finding of the learned District Judge that the plaintiffs'' family were settled raiyats of the village from a vary long time. In para. 2 of the plaint it was alleged that for a long time the plaintiffs'' ancestor was and after him the plaintiffs had been kashtkars of a large area of land in Mouza Khanna, and further in para. 4 that the plaintiffs and their ancestors were kaimi settled raiyats of Mouza Khanna and they and their ancestors had acquired occupancy right in the disputed land and in the survey khatian they had been recorded as kaimi raiyats. In the written statement there was no specific denial of these allegations. There was only the general plea that the defendant did not admit any of the plaintiff''s allegations except those that were admitted by him in his written statement. Besides the pleadings there is the entry in the Record of-Rights which shows that the father of plaintiff No. 2 was recorded as a kaimi raiyat in respect of the land in suit. And further the plaintiff stated in his evidence that he had other old ancestral kasht land.

It seems to be that the learned District Judge was entitled to hold that the plaintiffs'' family were settled raiyats of the village and that it cannot be fairly said that this finding rests on no evidence. Therefore, there is no point of law in this appeal which must be dismissed with costs.

Sen, J.

I agree.