JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. We have carefully perused the judgment of the learned District Judge and in view of its language have grave doubts that he fully understands the meaning of the expression, gradual accretion, according to its legal acceptation. In one part of his judgment he states that the river Gogra in the year 1882 “suddenly changed its course and began to flow north of Simri and south of Bill Khurd submerging two intervening villages.” He further finds that according to the settlement papers of 1884-85 “29 bighas and 4 biwas of the village of Simri are shown to have been washed away by the river,” and that according to the quinquennial settlement of 1888-1889, 136 bighas, 3 biswas, 4 dhurs, which had formerly belonged to Simri, were found to have been added to Bili Khurd,” and then he finds that in the settlement of 1893-1894 the whole area of Simri was either under water or had gradually accreted to Bili Khurd.” In view of these findings it is difficult to understand how it can be said that the land in dispute which admittedly was included in the area of mauza Simri gradually accreted to Bili Khurd. At the same time as the frontal area is not stated and it does not appear whether the so-called accretion was a continued process year by year or the work of particular years, we cannot satisfactorily dispose of this appeal without findings upon two issues. Before, however, we state those issues we may best explain our difficulty by reference to some authoritative definitions of the expression ‘gradual accretion’. 2. Alluvion is described by Justinian as an imperceptible increase, 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. (Institutes, Liber II, Fit. 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. (Institutes, Liber II, Fit. 1, sections 20-21.) Lord Justice JAMES in the case of Lopez v. Muddun Mohan Thakoor, [1870] 13 Moores, I.A., 467 referring to the principle on which title by “gradual accession” is acquired uses this language:— “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 lands.” From this it will be seen that accession to be gradual must be by gradual, slow and imperceptible means. The case of Krishn Chandra v. Sandan Bibi,[1904] 11 A.L.J.R., 821 is an instructive case upon this subject. In the case of Ritraj Kunwar v. Sarfaraz Kunwar,[1905] I.L.R., 27 All., 655 their Lordships of the Privy Council reaffirmed the principle laid down in Lopes v. Muddun Mohan Thakoor and observed in the course of their judgment:— “Here is no question of a gradual and slow process of acquisition to be measured by the inch, or the foot, or the yard, here land to the extent of more than 2,000 acres is claimed, not on the ground that the action of the river has been slowly and gradually to push forward the northern boundary of the appellant's land, but that the northern channel of the river, however it may shift, must be taken to be that boundary.” 3. The Court of first instance found that there could be no doubt that the land in suit has been reformed on its own site in mauza Simri. There is no express finding by the learned District Judge as to this and there is no clear finding of facts necessary to establish a gradual accretion. The Court of first instance found that there could be no doubt that the land in suit has been reformed on its own site in mauza Simri. There is no express finding by the learned District Judge as to this and there is no clear finding of facts necessary to establish a gradual accretion. The issues of which we desire to have a determination by the lower appellate Court are as follows:— (1) Whether the land in dispute which was submerged reformed and is capable of identification and is identified as having formed part of the plaintiff's estate? (2) Did this land accrete to the property of the defendants-respondents, and if so, was that accretion by gradual, slow and imperceptible means, or otherwise? 4. We refer these issues to the lower appellate Court for determination under the provisions of section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure and shall ask the learned District Judge to return to us his findings as soon as possible, together with such relevant evidence as the parties respectively may adduce in support of their case. On the return of the findings the parties will have the usual ten days for filing objections.