Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The Trial Judge, following a long and considerable body of decisions in Bengal, held that, if the plaintiffs' rights in this stream or streams out of which the new branch opened were once established, they would extend to the waters of the new branch as soon as it was formed, a principle which is conveniently called "the right to follow the river." It does not appear that this current of authority was challenged or doubted either before the Trial Judge or the High Court; certainly its authority was binding upon both. The defendants' case simply was that in fact neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors in title could be shown ever to have enjoyed or to have been entitled to any julkar right except that lying within the boundaries of their zainindari and appertaining thereto. The High Court appears to have arrived at a conclusion in favour of the defendants' argument mainly in consequence of the view taken of the true meaning of the judgment of 1816, and of the significance of the Thakbast map of 1862, and a marginal note upon it. It is not necessary to examine the language of the judgment of 1816 in detail, but their Lordships are unable to hold that it excluded the main or north, ern stream from the plaintiffs' fishery, either expressly or by implication. The language is obscure, but, as their Lordships read it, the plaintiffs' construction of it was right. The Thak map was pressed beyond its legitimate effect. It was concerned only with that portion of the fishery which fell within pergunnah Bikrampur and was inconclusive.