SMT. CHANDRA KUMARI DEVI (DEAD) AFTER HER, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SRI. TAPI SINGH BHOI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the Appellant in this First Appeal against the decision of the Trial Court dismissing the suit for mesne profits. During pendency of this appeal, Plaintiff having expired, her legal representative has been substituted.

(2.) CASE of the Plaintiff relevant for this appeal is that she is the widow of the intermediary of Bangamuda estate in Bolangir District. While the estate was part of erstwhile Patna State, her husband died and management of the estate was taken over by the Durbar. At that stage the princely state merged. On 1 -1 -1948 with Dominion of India and administration of the estate was taken over by the provincial administration of Orissa. However, the properties in respect of which mesne profit is being claimed in six villages were granted to the Plaintiff as life estate. Despite the same, the land in the six villages was forcibly possessed by State Government to recover which she had to file Title Suit No. 13 of 1965 and ultimately got back possession by executing the decree in Execution Case No. 73 of 1966 on 21 -1 -1968. After obtaining the decree on 23 -7 -1966, she issued notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, On 9 -11 -1966 for payment of the mesne profit on account of illegal possession and no action being taken, she filed an application to sue in forma pauperis on 28 -7 -1967 which being allowed, the suit was registered as Money Suit No. 8 of 1968. In the suit Plaintiff claimed realisation of Rs. 2,65,520/ - towards mesne profits. This consists of Rs. 1,08,000/ - the accumulated amount from 1955 to 1967 in deposit in the Treasury, Rs. 1,57,520/ - profits for the year 1964 -65, 1965 -66 and 1966 -67 at the rate of Rs. 52,8401 - per year.

(3.) TRIAL Court held that no notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure has been given and served on the Defendants, suit is hit under Order 2, R.2, Code of Civil Procedure, Suit is barred by limitation in respect of a portion of the claim and in spite of the fact that State Government was leasing out portion of the land in different years to different persons, the land being Bhogra, Plaintiff is not entitled to compensation.