SAMSUDDIN RAHMAN AND ORS. versus BIHARI DAS AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 258 · Decided: 09-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SAMSUDDIN RAHMAN AND ORS. 
v. 
BIHARI DAS AND ORS. 
JULY 9, 1996 
B 
[MM. PUNCHHI AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Land Laws: 
Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1866: Regulations 3(b) Expln. 
C and 34(c). 
Accretion-Land-Gain of-By alluvion or dereliction of 1iver-Tlial 
court and first appellate cowt concu1Tent/y found gradual and imperceptible 
accretion to land since it had taken 15-16 years for accretion to be visible and 
D demonstrable-High Cowt in second appeal upset such a finding Oil the 
ground of deficiency in evidenc~H·eld : cause of accretion whether gradual 
or imperceptible or sudden ill single season by alluvion or dereliction of 
rive,..-Question of fact and not mixed question of fact and law-High Cowt 
e1Ted in inte1fering with a finding of fact ill second appeal on ground of 
deficiency in evidence-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S. 100. 
E 
The appellants-plaintiffs were the owners of a parcel of land covered 
by a Patta. Alongside that parcel of land, a river used to flow on the 
Southern and Eastern sides. It was claimed that gradually the river 
receded, making slow and imperceptible gains as accretions to the 
F landholding of the appellants, which gain was solidified in the form of the 
suit land. The appellants on that basis claimed that the suit land had 
become part ancl parcel of their original holding and that they had been 
in possession thereof till the Deputy Commissioner on grant of annual 
Patta to the contesting respondents, has cast a shadow on their title. This 
G necessitated the appellants·plaintiffs to tile a suit before the Assis~ant 
District Judge praying for declaration of title in respect of the suit land. 
The trial court found the title in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs but 
dismissed the suit on the basis that no specific claim had been raised. by 
the appellants- plaintiffs to get quashed the grant of the annual patta, 
given by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of the respondents-defen-
H dants. 
258 
SAMSUDDIN RAHMAN v. BIHARI DAS 
259 
The District Judge, on appeal, decreed the suit on the basis that once A 
title stood proved in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs, the factual grant 
of annual patta in favour of the respondents- defendants had no value or 
sanctity. The High Court, on a1ipeal, dismissed the suit of the appellants-
plaintitl's altogether, taking the view that the evidence led by the appel-
lants· plaintiffs was deficient to the point of being no evidence at all in the 
eye of law. Being aggrieved the ap1iellant-plaintiffs preferred the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : l. It is the conceded position between the contestants that C 
the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations 1886, as amended upto date, is 
attracted to provide solution to the dispute. However, no statutory law \\'as 
applicable in the State of Assam with regard to the right to any land gained 
by alluvion or dereliction of a river to any estate. A Division Bench of the 
Assam High Court in Boroji A1uniproini had obsen'ed "it is an universal 
law, recognised by all that a land which has gradually and imperceptibly D 
come out of the river bed and added to the land of a riparian owner 
becomes part of the land belonging to him and is to be considered as his 
property." The High Court took the view that in the State the principles of 
English Law on the subject were applicable as principles of justice, equity 
and good conscience and those principles by themselves had the force of E 
law governing the rights between the parties. The state of law thus evolved 
in the State of Assam is acceptable. [261-G, 262-F] 
Boroji Munipwini v. State of Assam and Ors., AIR (1958) Assam 34, 
approved. 
2. The whole doctrine of accretion is based upon the theory that from 
day to day, \\'eek to \\'eek and month to month, a man cannot see where his 
F 
old line of boundary was, and that \\
1hich cannot be perceived in its 
progress is taken to be as if it never existed at all. Such being the ordinary 
human perception, the High Court erred in expecting of the plaintill"s 
witnesses to say about their means of knowledge, or to their objectivity, or G 
demonstration of facts, or any document on this aspect being available, 
and on that basis ternting such evidence merely as an expression of opinion 
and strangely no legal evidence. The reasoning of the High Court appears 
entirely erroneous in the presence of the bar erected under Section 100 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.