Judgment Mahapatra, J. 1. The case of the plaintiffs, who are the appellants, is that, the suit lands, 6 bighas 7 kathas in area, form part of Batwara plot No. 535 appertaining to Tauzi No. 13800. of village Sasan, which was comprised of several tauzis including Tauzi Nos. 1877, 1891 and 1878. Before the survey operations, the records of which were finally published in 1901, a Collectorate batwara took place of the aforesaid tauzis, as a result of which, Tauzi No. 13800 was carved out for the plaintiffs ancestors from the parent tauzi 1877. The suit land belongs to that tauzi. The plaintiffs ancestors took delivery of possession along with other plots, that were allotted to their share, in the batwara in the year 1898 and since then they have been in possession throughout. Proceedings under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started between the defendants 1st and the defendant 2nd party, in which the defendants 1st party claimed the batwara plot No. 535 as their survey plot No. 3648/4626 and as forming part of their Tauzi No. 13488. Those proceedings ended in favour of the defendants 1st party on 4-9-1950. The plaintiffs were not impleaded as parties to that proceeding, although it had been pointed out in the written statement filed by one side that the land appertained to Batwara plot No. 535 and it was a part of Tauzi No. 13800 and it belonged to the plaintiffs. On the strength of the orders passed in the proceedings under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendants 1st party were alleged to have threatened the plaintiffs with dispossession and interference. Accordingly, the present suit was instituted for declaration of title with a prayer that if the defendants 1st party were found to have dispossessed the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit, or, if the Court finds that the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the land, then possession should be restored to the plaintiffs. 2. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2, who will be referred to as defendants 1st party in this judgment. Their defence was that the disputed plot did not form part of the Batwara plot No. 535. 2. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2, who will be referred to as defendants 1st party in this judgment. Their defence was that the disputed plot did not form part of the Batwara plot No. 535. In fact, the survey plot in village Sasan, numbered as 3648/4626 relates to the suit land, but due to the mistake of the survey authorities, (the plot number was mentioned in the record of rights as 3648 only. The defendants claimed their possession all through and alleged that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land. Defendant 2nd party was said to be the relative of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that since the orders under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were passed against the defendant 2nd party, he has now set up the fight through the plaintiffs in the present litigation. 2a. The trial court found that the disputed land actually formed part of plot No. 3648/4626 and did not form part of Batwara plot No. 535. It further held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove either their title to or possession over the suit land. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against that, which has been disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge in Title Appeal No. 14 of 1957/148 of 1955. The lower appellate court has now held that the suit did form part of Batwara plot No. 535, but it has held that the defendants having been in continuous possession for more than 12 years, their title has been perfected by adverse possession and the plaintiffs have been, therefore, non-suited. 3. The main point canvassed in this second appeal is whether, in view of the finding that "admittedly the disputed land is in the river bed and even the rightful owner cannot bring it under cultivation during the rainy season," the defendants can be said to have completed the title by adverse possession. In other words, the question is whether by the fact that there is seasonal submergence of the land under water for three months every year, there is interruption of the adverse possession by the defendants. In other words, the question is whether by the fact that there is seasonal submergence of the land under water for three months every year, there is interruption of the adverse possession by the defendants. In cases of this nature, what is really to be considered is whether the possession of the rightful owner is interrupted during the period when the land goes under water and is incapable of being actually possessed by the defendants for any purpose. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to a few cases in this connection, which are the cases of Secretary of State V/s. Ram Bachan Lal, AIR 1941 Pat 422, and the case of Kameshwar Singh V/s. Shree Ram Janki, F. A. No. 478 of 1946, decided by this Court on the 12th May, 1953 (Pat). These cases have followed the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Secretary of State V/s. Krishnamoni Gupta, 29 Ind App 104 (PC), and the case of Basanta Kumar Roy V/s. Secretary of State, 44 Ind App 104 : (AIR 1917 PC 18). Lord Sumner has laid down in the last mentioned case that constructive possession of lands while diluviated being in the true owner, there cannot be continuous adverse possession, within Article 144, of land while it is diluviated during part of every year. In that case the lands were under submergence for five months during which period individual plots lost their identity. In the case reported in AIR 1941 Pat 422, the lands used to be under submergence for three months and no cultivation was possible. In that case the lands were under submergence for five months during which period individual plots lost their identity. In the case reported in AIR 1941 Pat 422, the lands used to be under submergence for three months and no cultivation was possible. In the case of Abdul Latif Khan V/s. Somar Kunjra, AIR 1942 Pat 341, which was cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, their Lordships, after discussing the cases reported in AIR 1941 Pat 422, 29 Ind App 104 (PC) and 44 Ind App 104 : (AIR 1917 PC 18), observed as follows : "It would seem to be a question in the circumstances of each case whether the submergence was so prolonged and of such a kind as to make the land what Lord Sumner calls derelict and thus to interrupt adverse possession." This is also the view which has been taken in the unreported case of this Court referred to above, 4 In the present case, as stated by the lower appellate Court, the admitted facts are that the disputed land lies in the bed of the river and it remains submerged under water every year, for about three months. What is the extent and the nature of the submergence is a question of fact and the finding of the lower appellate court is, apart from what I have stated earlier from one passage of its judgment, as follows : "I should think, therefore, that apart from any other reason, as the disputed land admittedly lies in the river bed and as, therefore, it cannot be brought into cultivation during rainy season, the defendants* possession could not be said to have been interrupted by the land remained submerged for a few months during rainy season. For these reasons as well, therefore, I hold that the defendants have been in continuous possession of the disputed land ever since the survey." 5. The portion quoted above contains a clear finding that the disputed land lies in the river bed and cannot be brought under cultivation during the rainy season. The other part of this quotation presents the view of the lower appellate court on the question of law, whether submergence of this kind would be taken to have interrupted the adverse possession of the defendants. I have already indicated the view of this court as well as of Judicial Committee on that aspect. The other part of this quotation presents the view of the lower appellate court on the question of law, whether submergence of this kind would be taken to have interrupted the adverse possession of the defendants. I have already indicated the view of this court as well as of Judicial Committee on that aspect. If the land cannot be brought under cultivation during the rainy season, as found by the lower appellate court, there is no escape from the conclusion that that kind of submergence must necessarily be taken to be sufficient to interrupt the adverse possession claimed by the defendants. This interruption is recurring in nature and spreads over the rainy season every year. In that view, the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate court in regard to the application of law, as laid down in the cases cited above, is erroneous. 6. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the lower appellate court has found also, "therefore, this is the consistent evidence of the P. Ws. themselves that the disputed land yields two crops every year". It has also found that the plaintiffs were not in possession in 1932, as it appeared from the previous deposition of Shaym-sunder Rai in a previous litigation (Exhibit E). The lower appellate court has also found that the presumption of correctness of the entries in the record of rights in 1901, where defendants 1st partys names have been entered, has not been rebutted sufficiently by the plaintiffs. The settlement entry in question was undoubtedly incorrect, because the plot number given there has been found to be so. The status of the defendants 1st party shown therein is also not correct. Therefore, the presumption of correctness, which is ordinarily attached to the entries in the settlement records, has been very much weakened by the findings of incorrectness in regard to some portions of that very entry. As for the finding that the plaintiffs were not in possession in 1932, it is only based on Exhibit E, but throughout the nature of possession of the defendants 1st party as taken by the lower appellate court, is that they possessed the land every year, except for the rainy season. In that view, these findings, as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, will be of no assistance to him. 7. In that view, these findings, as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, will be of no assistance to him. 7. Before the first of the three findings referred to above, the learned Subordinate judge discussed the evidence of P. Ws. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 13. What this finding represents is, in my opinion, reconcilable with the findings of the lower appellate court about the land being in the river bed and it being incapable of cultivation during the rainy season. It is not impossible that two crops can be raised in the land, although the land may be under water and not cultivated during the rainy season. It will be difficult for me to go into the evidence at this stage to find out the extent and nature of the submergence of the land in dispute. I shall be content in accepting the findings of the lower appellate court in this respect. 8. On that finding the position of law is clear. The constructive possession of the land in question during the period of submergence every year will be taken to be in the rightful owners, who, in the present case, are the plaintiffs, the defendants 1st party having not been able to prove their title independent of adverse possession. According to the findings of the lower appellate court the suit land clearly belongs to Batwara plot No. 535, which was given to the plaintiffs ancestors. 9. In the result, the appeal will succeed, the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are set aside and the plaintiffs suit is decreed with costs throughout.