(1.) PLAINTIFFS has filed this second appeal from the reversing decision of Sri G. Panda, Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri, dated 4 -3 -1965, passed in title appeal No. 45/6 of 1004, dismissing the suit.
(2.) PLAINTIFF filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest and for recovery of possession of the suit -property which is sixty decimals appertaining to plot No. 546 in mouza. Odgaon which belongs to the deity, Raghunath Jew, Defendant -1. Plaintiff 's case is that he was granted temporary lease of the same for about ten years. The suit -land adjoins his house and was being used, during the duration of his temporary lease, as his Bari. On 19 -4 -1947, the Plaintiff applied for permanent lease to the Debottar Superintendent, who was the brother of the then Ruler of Nayagarh. Upon this, miscellaneous case No. 65 of 1947 -1948 was started and by order dated 26.12.1947, the Debottar Superintendent directed permanent lease to be granted to the Plaintiff, and in anticipation of such grant, Nazarana was paid and accepted. Before this order was passed, there was a merger agreement entered into by the then Ruler of Ex. State of Nayagarh, with the Government of India. This agreement was dated 14 -12.1947. Under this agreement the entire administration of the State was handed over to the Government of India with effect from 1st, of January, 1948. In due course an administrator was appointed under the Orissa States Administration Order who took over the charge of the administration on behalf of the Government of India with effect from 1 -1 -1948. Actual patta was granted by the administrator on 20 -1 -1948, and the rent was being paid by the Plaintiff till 1948. The villagers represented to the administrator against grant of permanent lease to the Plaintiff upon which the lease was cancelled by order of the administrator on 7 -4 -1948. The Plaintiff took up this matter in appeal to the Chief Administrator who confirmed the order of the administrator on 1 -6 -1948.
(3.) THERE are two Defendants, one is the deity, and the second is the Endowments Commissioner. The main defence was that the lease was not for legal necessity, and the Debottar Superintendent had no authority to grant such lease. The grant of such lease was, therefore, invalid and has been validly cancelled.