DIRJU PATRA Vs. MINAKETAN PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant who was unsuccessful in both the courts below. The suit land measuring 1.02 acres is a part of holding No. 5/1 measuring 16 acres and odd. The said holding was the Bhogra land in the village Sunaripali in Bolangir district. One Danara Saref was the Thikadar of the said village tip to 1941, when he being removed from the Thekadarship the plaintiff was appointed the Thekadar of the said village and he continued to be the Thekadar till after the merger of the States. In 1952 there were Bhogra conversion proceedings taken up in Bolangir district, and the plaintiff surrendering all the Bhogra lands to the Government of Orissa, the said Bhogra lands were re-settled with him by the Government, as a rayat. According to the plaintiff's case, when he became the Thekadar in 1941, he came into possession of all the Bhogra fends including the disputed land and he continued in possession thereof until the surrender and the re-settlement of the Bhogra lands with him; that the defendant was setting up claim in respect of the disputed land and was trying to dispossess the plaintiff. So, the plaintiffs suit was one for declaration of his title and for confirmation, or in the alternative, for recovery of possession. The defendant's case was that he purchased the disputed land from the previous Thekadar Danara Saraf near about 1920 for a consideration of Rs. 40/- in a plain paper document and that he continued in possession thereof during the period of Danara Saraf as the Thekadar and even thereafter right up to the date of the suit, irrespective of the fact that the plaintiff came in as the new Thekadar and as such into possession of other lands in the Bhogra holding. According to the defendant, he had acquired title to the disputed land by purchase or by adverse possession, and since the plaintiff had never come into possession thereof, the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation.

(2.) The learned trial court did not accept the defendant's case of purchase of the disputed land by him from Danara Saraf, the previous Thekadar. It accepted the plaintiffs case that the plaintiff came into and remained in possession of the disputed land since he became the Thekadar, and with these findings the learned trial court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The learned appellate Court believed the defendant's case of purchase and also possession of the disputed land from 1920 upto the conversion of the Bhogra lands to raiyati: but since no title could be acquired, by purchase, to Bhogra lands under the Revenue Law of the State and since the total period of the defendant's possession was about 36 years, the learned appellate Court's finding was that no title by adverse possession had been acquired by the defendant against the Government who was the owner of the Bhogra lands, and so the plaintiff acquired a valid title from the Government who settled the disputed land with the plaintiff on raiyati basis.

(3.) The appellant's contention in the present appeal is that Article 149 of the Limitation Act which reserves a period of limitation of 60 years for any suit by or on behalf of the Government, does not avail to the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff's case was covered either by Article 142 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act, and in either case the defendant having been found to be in possession for more than 12 years adversely against the plaintiff himself as the Thekadar or against the Government, whatever it might be, the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation. On the other hand, the contention on the respondent's side was that the learned appellate Court's finding about the defendant's purchase and possession throughout, contrary to the finding of the learned trial court, was erroneous. So the aforesaid points arise for determination in the present appeal.