BISWANATH RANA Vs. LAXMAN RANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs who sued for a declaration that they were tenants of the disputed property along with the defendant no. 1 are appellants against the reversing decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar. THE plaintiffs claim that they and the defendant no. 1 are brothers and all of them constituted a Hindu Mitakshara joint family. THE defendant no. 1 was the eldest brother and was acting as Karta of the family. THE joint family possessed the proprties for a long time as Bhag tenants under one Radhamani Dei who was holding the properties as Khanja Kharposh granted by the Ruling Chief of the Ex-State of Khandapara. Several claimants came up raising claims in respect of the lands in dispute after the merger of the ex-state of Khandapara with the State of Orissa. Board of Revenue of the State of Orissa decided that all the cultivating tenants had acquired occupancy right in respect of the Khanja Kharposh lands in their possession. With a view to dispossessing the plaintiffs as also the defendant no. 1, the Khanja Karposh holder initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. as also under the Orissa Tenants Relief Act of 1955. All these proceedings, however, terminated against the Khanja Kharposh holder. THE plaintiffs and the defendant no. 1 continued to possess the lands. THE plaintiffs applied to get their names recorded as occupancy ryots in Miscellaneous Case No. 9 of 1961-62. THE defendant no. 1 with a view to depriving the plaintiffs of their rights objected and ultimately succeeded to get the lands recorded in his name alone by order of the Revenue Officer dated 16-3-1963. THE plaintiffs, therefore, instituted the suit on 19-11-1963 for a declaration that they are occupancy tenants along with the defendant no. 1.

(2.) THE defendant no. 2 is the Collector of Puri and the defendant no. 1, as already stated, is the brother of the plaintiffs. THE main plea in the defence case is that the defendant no. 1 alone was possessing the disputed property all through and had, therefore, come to be recorded as occupancy ryot and the property admittedly belonged to the State of Orissa who have settled the same with the defendant no. 1. THE plaintiffs had, therefore, no cause of action.