HADU GOUDO Vs. DAYANIDHI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the order dated 3-2-65 passed by the learned subordinate Judge, Berhampur, directing recovery of possession of certain properlies which had been sold away by the ex-receiver in favour of the appellants without authority of the court.

(2.) IN T. S. No. 23 of 1943 there was a compromise in April 1951. The subject matter of the title suit related to vast immovable properties and a running business. Receivers were appointed to be in charge of the properties. Damodar sahu, a member of the family, came to be appointed as a receiver. In February, 1959 Damodar appointed an authorised agent and in [july, 1959 there were a number of transfers under which properties which were the subject matter of the litigation and in respect of which receiver had been appointed were alienated in favour of a number of persons. In April, 1961 Damodar was discharged from receivership. , An application was made in the court of the learned Subordinate judge purporting to be under Order 40, Rule 1 read with Section 151, Civil P. C. on 6-11-63 by Dayanidhi Sahu who happens to be a party and receiver for eviction of the transferees and for recovery of possession of the properties. As it appears from the schedule, the extent of properties transferred was about 88 acres. The learned Subordinate Judge called upon the transferees to file their objection and many of them appeared and contested the proceeding. The learned Subordinate judge took into consideration the various contentions raised on behalf of the transferee-opposite parties. Their first contention was that the petitioner had no locus standi. Secondly they contended that the petition was not maintainable in law without impleading the State of Orissa as a party mainly on account of the fact that some of the properties had vested in the State of Orissa by operation of law under Act I of 1952. The third contention was that the estate having already vested in the State Government the relief for eviction was not maintainable. All these contentious were negatived by the learned Subordinate Judge and he came to hold that the sale deeds were illegal and void, and the respondents were liable to be evicted from the disputed lands. He accordingly called upon the transferees to make over the vacant possession of the disputed properties under their possession to the petitioner receiver within a month from the date of the order failing which the receiver was permitted to take possession by execution.

(3.) THE appeal in this Court has been dismissed as against respondents. 2, 3, 7, 15 to 21, 22 and 25 by two separate orders being orders Nos. 17 and 29. The dismissal of this appeal may not lead to total abatement on account of the fact that the alienations which were attacked in the proceeding were different and the causes of action were independent and severable. As it appears, these respondents are also alienees who have not joined in the appeal as appellants.