(1.) THIS appeal has been referred to a Division Bench for decision by one of us (Tare J.), as it involves some substantial questions of law. It arises out of the decree passed by Shri Kasliram, District Judge, Raigarh in Civil Appeal No. 9 -A of 1955 decided on 18 -1 -1956, reversing the decree passed by Shri V.N. Mishra, Civil Judge Class II, Raigarh in Civil Suit No. 26 -A of 1953, decided on the 12th March, 1955. The suit was filed by Rameshwar; but, as he died during its pendency, the present Appellants were brought on record in his place as his legal representatives. The suit land with an area of 3.53 acres bearing khasra Nos. 280, 346. 369, 363, 382, 626, 1036, and 1108 rental Rs.3 -14 -0 of mauza Tarda originally belonged to one Jage Mahra in ryoti rights. He died in the year 1942, leaving his widow, Mst. Padma, and his pre -deceased son's widow, Mst. Jeera.
(2.) HE also left a brother by name, Khageshwar who was separate from him. After his death, the names of Mst. Padma and Mst. Jeera were recorded as ryots. Mst. Padma died in the year 1948 and Mst. Jeera was alleged to have remarried. The Appellants' predecessor, namely, Rameshwar, who was the Gaontia till the abolition of proprietary rights, filed the present suit for possession of the suit land and for a declaration that the sale -deeds dated 3 -5 -1950 (Ex. D -7) executed by Mst. Jeera in favour of Khageshwar and dated 26 -7 -1952 (Ex. D -6) executed by Khageshwar in favour of the present Respondent were not binding on the Gaontia, as there were no legal heirs of the deceased Jage and, therefore, the land was at the disposal of the Plaintiff gaontia vide Clause 29 of the Raigarh State Wajib -ul -arz.
(3.) THE defence was that the transfer was bonafide and for valuable consideration; that the suit was barred by time, as it should have been filed within one year of the date of the passing of the order by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Raigarh, and at any rate, it should have been filed within 2 years of the death of Mst. Padma. It was also averred that as the proprietary rights had been abolished, the gaontia or his successors had no right to claim possession of the suit land.