BHIMO MOHARANA Vs. MOHAN MOHARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sanyasi Moharana had three sons, Ekadasi, Kalu and Satyabadi. The first two sons died issuless. Admittedly, Satyabadi held the office of village blacksmith of village Dalasarakhandi. The suit lands consisting of 3.38 acres were annexed to the office towards the emoluments. Satyabadi had five sons, Bhima (Plaintiff), Lakshmana, Natabara, Mohana (Defendant No. 1) and Madan. Bhima, the eldest son, was admittedly serving under the Railways till 1959 when he retired; after retirement in that very year he filed the suit. Natabar died about 25 years ago. Madan is still in Railway service. Learned Advocates were not able to tell us what Lakshman is doing now. Plaintiff's case that after the death of Satyabadi in 1949 he let out the lands to defendant No. 3 for one year and that the latter executed a muchalika (Ext. 1). Plaintiff claims title to the disputed property on the strength of Section 12 of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act, 1895 (Madras Act III of 1895) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), whereunder he claims that the succession to the village office devolved on him in accordance with customary law of primogeniture. He accordingly prayed for declaration of title and recovery or possession and other incidental reliefs. The aforesaid claims were contested by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1.

(2.) THE main defence case is that even prior to the death of Satyabadi, defendant No. 1 had acted as the village Blacksmith from 1946 as Satyabadi was unable to perform the duties of that office due to illness and bad eyesight. Ever since then ha (defendant No. 1) has been in possession of the disputed property as emoluments attached to the office, and it was only in 1959 that the plaintiff disputed his claim and filed the suit.