Dikhei alias Dukhai Sahu vs Bishnu Charan Sahu and Another

S. Acharya, J.—The unsuccessful Defendant in the Court below has preferred this appeal.

The Plaintiffs'' suit is for recovery of possession of the suit property described in the schedule attached to the plaint. The Plaintiffs'' case is that they are the owners of the suit property and on the request of the Defendant they in March, 1960 allowed the Defendant to stay temporarily in the house on the suit land. The Defendant thereafter did not vacate the suit house in spite of demands. Hence this suit.

According to the Defendant:His father purchased 28 decimals out of plots Nos. 319, 320 and 326 with a house standing,thereon and he and his father were and are in possession of the said house on their own rights. That house does not belong to the Plaintiffs and the Defendant and/or his father were never in permissive possession of the said house.

The trial Court held that the suit property belonged to the Plaintiffs but the Defendant and his father perfected title to the said property by adverse possession.

The Plaintiffs appealed against the said finding. The appellate Court has confirmed the finding of the trial Court to the effect that the suit property belongs to the Plaintiffs. But the finding of the trial Court that the Defendant has perfected his title to the suit property by adverse possession has been reversed, and the Court below has found that the Defendant is in possession of the suit house with the permission of the Plaintiffs.

Mr. Patra, she learned Counsel for the Appellant, contends that the Court below lost sight of the fact that the Plaintiffs'' right, if any, to the suit property has already been extinguished on the vesting of the suit property in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act), and so the suit for the reliefs prayed is not maintainable. There is absolutely no weight or substance in the above contention. The record-of-rights (Ext. 2) shows that the Plaintiffs the only raiyats in respect of the suit property and Premananda Samantara was actually the intermediary of the said property. Section 8(1) of the Act is as follows:

Continuity of tenure of tenants: (1) Any person who immediately before the date of the vesting of an estate in the State Government was in possession of any holding as a tenant under an intermediary shall on and from the date of vesting, be deemed to be a tenant of the State Government and such person shall hold the land in the same rights and subject to the same restrictions and liabilities as he was entitled or subject to, immediately before the date of vesting.

Thus as the Plaintiffs are only raiyats, i.e. tenants, in respect of the suit property, their rights to continue as tenants and to possess the land in that capacity is not affected by the vesting of the estate under the Act. The Orissa Estates Abolition Act is intended to abolish all intermediaries and rent receivers. The interests of such persons vest In the State on the abolition of the estate under the Act, but the interests of the tillers of the soil, i.e. the tenants, are not at all touched by the said Act. In this connection the decision reported in Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha Vs. State of Orissa, , and the decision of this Court in Second Appeal No. 145/65) decided on 6-1-1970" may be seen. On the above consideration I find that there is absolutely no weight or substance in the above-mentioned contention of Mr. Patra.

Mr. Patra has not been able to assail any of the findings in the impugned judgment.

I, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Mr. Patra states that as per the orders passed in an O.L.R. case the suit property has been settled with the Defendant. Mr. Patnaik for the Respondents states that the Respondents have filed a writ petition (O.J.C. No. 221/78) in this Court challengmg the said order, and notice for admission and hearing has been directed to be issued in that case. In view of the above statements it is for the parties to work out their rights or remedies, If any, according to law in respect of the:said order.

Appeal dismissed.