JUDGMENT : Stanley, J. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was one, for the recovery of 170 bighas of land, which were situate in the village of Panha in the district of Benares, on the south east bank of the river Gomti, but by a change in the course of that river are now on the north-west bank in the Jaunpur district. The plaintiff's case is that there was a sudden change in the course of the Gomti in the year 1299 Fasli (corresponding to the year 1891), and that the area of land now sought to be recovered was cut off from the plaintiff's village. The defendants admit that the land in dispute did formerly belong to the plaintiff's village, but they say That the change in the course of the stream was gradual, and that they have acquired the land by gradual accretion. ‘ They also set up a title by ad-verse possession. 2. The Court below held that a title by adverse possession was not established but that the defendants have acquired the land in dispute by gradual accretion. From this decision the plaintiff has appealed. 3. It is admitted that no custom exists as regards alluvion and consequently the dispute between the parties must be decided on the basis of the rules provided by Regulation XI of 1825. 4. By section 4 of this Regulation it is laid down that “when, land may be gained by gradual accession whether from the recess of a river, or of the sea, it shall be considered an increment to the tenure of the person to whose land or estate it is thus annexed, whether such land or estate be held immediately from Government by a zemindar or other superior landholder or as a subordinate tenure by any description of under-tenant whatever,” and in the second paragraph it is provided that the rule so laid down “shall not be considered applicable to cases in which a river by a sudden change of its course may break through and intersect an estate, without any gradual encroachment or may by the violence of its stream separate a considerable piece of land from one estate and joint it to another estate without destroying the identity and preventing the recognition of the land so removed. In such cases the land on being clearly recognized shall remain the property of its original owner. 5. In the plaint the plaintiff says that in the year 1891 there was a heavy flood in the Gomti and that the river bursting its bank made a sudden diversion of its course and having left its original channel, began to flow within mauza Panha, and that owing to this a large tract of mauza Panha, measuring about 100 bighas, was thrown up on the west and north side of the stream. It is admitted that there was a great flood in the Gomti in 1891, but the defendants say that long prior to this date the river had been gradually encroaching on the plaintiff's village and that the land in dispute had gradually accreted to their village mauza Tatarpur. A number of witnesses were examined on both sides but we are not disposed to attach much weight to their evidence except so far as it is supported by documentary evidence. But we may say that the weight of the oral evidence appears to us to support the plaintiffs case. The witnesses for the plaintiff said that the land in dispute was cut off from the plaintiff's village in the year 1891 by a sudden diversion of the river Gomti, while the witnesses for the defendants alleged that it gradually emerged on the Tatarpur side of the Gomti, during the years succeeding the year 1881. 6. The question turns upon the true meaning of the expression “gradual accession” as used in the Regulation. The learned Subordinate Judge seems to think that if a considerable tract of land adjoining a stream is submerged and cut off in the course of a month or two and when the water has subsided the course of the stream is found to have been diverted and the land emerged on the opposite bank of the stream the accession thus created is gradual. Referring to the evidence of Sheobaran Singly one of the witnesses for the plaintiff, who testified that so much as 100 or 125 bighas of land re-appeared on the side of the defendant's village owing to the sudden dereliction of the Gomti, the learned Subordinate Judge observes that in cross-examination the witness admitted that “the tract that was cut off in the first year had been cut off from the month of Asarh to the month of Katik” (i.e., from July to October) and this clearly means that the said tract was carried away by degrees.” He deals with the evidence of other witnesses for the plaintiff in the same way; for example, his comment on the evidence of Mahabal Singh,. who deposed that the tract which was first carried away was carried away in the course of a month, is, “consequently this too does not prove the statement on which the plaintiff's suit is based.” 7. The rule laid down in the Regulation of 1825 in regard to alluvion substantially follows the English law on the subject and is based upon the Roman law. According to Justinian “whatever is added to a man's property by alluvion becomes his by natural law,” and alluvion is thus defined by him:— Alluvio incrementum latens. Per alluvionem autem id videiur adjici quod its paulatim adjicitur ut intelligere non possis quantum quodno memento temporis adjiciatur.” (Institutes, Lib, II, tit. I, s. 20). Alluvion is described as an imperceptible increase [incrementum latens] and land is said to be acquired by alluvion when it is acquired so gradually that one cannot say how much is added at any particular moment of time. But if by the violence of a river a portion of land is added to the estate of an adjoining owner, the land continues to be the property of the original owner. “Quodsi vis fluminis partem alignam ex tuo praedis delrananit et vicini praedeo appulerit, palam est earn tuam permanere.” (Lib. II, tit. 1, s. 21.) This gives an indication of the true meaning of “gradual accession.” The leading case of Lopez v. Muddun Mohun Thakoor, [1870] 13 M.I.A., 467 is instructive. In that case land forming part of a mauza on the banks of the Ganges by reason of continual encroachments of the river became submerged and the surface soil was wholly washed away. In that case land forming part of a mauza on the banks of the Ganges by reason of continual encroachments of the river became submerged and the surface soil was wholly washed away. After recession and re-encroachment by the river the waters ultimately subsided and left the land re-formed in its original site. It was held that the land washed away, and afterwards reformed on the old ascertained sites, was not land gained by increment within the meaning of section 4 of Regulation XI of 1825. Lord Justice JAMES, who delivered the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council, in the course of his judgment observed that it was a principle not merely of English Law or peculiar to any system of Municipal jaw, but a principle founded in universal law and justice that “whoever has land, wherever it is, whatever may be the accident to which it has been exposed, whether it be a vineyard which is covered by lava or ashes from a volca No or a field covered by the sea, or by a river, the ground, the site, the property remains in the original owner,” and he then refers to the principle on which title by gradual accession is acquired in these words. There is, however, another principle recognized in the English law derived from the Civil law which is this—that where there is an acquisition of land from the sea or a river by gradual, slow and imperceptible means, there, from the supposed necessity of the case and the difficulty of having to determine year by year to whom an inch, or a foot, or a yard belongs, the accretion by alluvion is held to belong to the owner of the adjoining land.” From this we gather the meaning of gradual accession; it must be by gradual, slow, and imperceptible means. 8. In the later case of Hursahai Singh v. Syud Lootf Ali Khan, [1874] L.R., 2 I.A., 28, their Lordships of the Privy Council re-affirmed the principle laid down in Lopez v. Muddun Mohun Thahoor, [1870] 13 M.I.A., 467, namely, that where land which has been submerged re-forms and can be identified as having formed part of a particular estate, the owner of that estate is entitled to it. In the case before us there is no difficulty as regards the identification of the land. In the case before us there is no difficulty as regards the identification of the land. The course of the stream is defined upon maps prepared in the years 1881 and 1883. These maps are admitted, and it is also admitted by the respondents that the midstream of the river as shown in maps formed the boundary between the villages of Tatarpur and Panha. In a map which was prepared in 1886 for the purposes of litigation then pending between the parties to the present appeal in reference to a piece of land on the west side of the rivet, the course of the stream is shown as it existed in 1881, and it is also shown by this map that a considerable tract of mauza Panha lying to the east of the river, had been submerged. The Khasra of mauza Panha for the year 1294, corresponding to the year 1887, shows that a number of fields and portions of field belonging to that village had been cut away by the river. The amount so cut away amounted to over 25 bighas. In the next year about 6 bighas were submerged, and in the following 3 years, nearly 80 bighas were submerged, In the year 1298 Fasli, corresponding to the year 1892, that is, the year after the great flood of 1891 land appears for the first time to have emerged on the Tatarpur side of the Gomti. This we gather from a statement in the Khasra of mauza Panha for that year. Over 10 bighas are therein stated to have appeared on the other side of the river, and this area is described as being part of the river Gomti; Until the year 1892 no increase in the area of Tatarpur is shown. In the rent-roll of M. Tatarpur for the year 1298 Fasli the area of the village is given as 922 bighas, 1 biswa, 4 dhurs. This area corresponds with the area of the village in 1289 Fasli as appears from the Khasra of that year. It was not until the year 1299 Falsi (that is, the year of the flood) that the area was increased. In that year the rent-roll shows an area of 1,014 bighas, 9 biswas and 8 dhurs, that is, 92 bighas in excess of the area given in the rent-roll of the preceding year. It was not until the year 1299 Falsi (that is, the year of the flood) that the area was increased. In that year the rent-roll shows an area of 1,014 bighas, 9 biswas and 8 dhurs, that is, 92 bighas in excess of the area given in the rent-roll of the preceding year. In 1300 Fasli, the area given is 1,013 bighas, 8 biswas, 4 dhurs, and in 1301, 1038 the bighas, 8 biswas and 9 dhurs. The evidence inclines us to think that though the Gomti frequently overflowed its banks from the year 1881, onwards, there was no actual change in the course of the stream, until in the great flood of 1891, the river forced a new passage through the land in dispute. This could only be discovered when the water subsided, We have no hesitation, therefore, in coming to the conclusion that, the defendants-respondents did not acquire title to the property which they claimed by gradual accession. It was by a sudden change in the course of the Gomti that the land in dispute emerged on their side of the river. 9. As we have come to the conclusion that there was no gradual accretion of the lands in dispute to the defendants-respondent's village, it is unnecessary to consider the case of Debi Bakhsh Singh v. Tirbhawan Singh, [1897] I.L.R., 19 All., 238, upon which the learned Counsel for the respondents relied. 10. As regards the claim of title by adverse possession which the respondents put forward as well in the Court below as in this Court, we agree in the view taken by the Court below. The respondents have wholly failed to show that they have acquired any title by adverse possession. 11. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below, and give a decree to the plaintiff for possession of the land as claimed in the plaint. The plaintiff claims mesne profits for the year 1307-1309 Fasli. To these he is entitled, and we so award and direct that the amount of mesne profits be ascertained in execution. We give the plaintiff the costs of this appeal and also the costs in the Court below, the fees in this Court to be on the higher scale.