MANA Vs. UJAL BISI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 1 and 2 have come with this appeal against the reversing decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Barsarh. The plaintiffs sued for title in respect of 4. 59 acres of land shown in the Ka schedule of the plaint. Their source of title was indicated to be a sift deed made by the defendant No. 10 subsequently transposed as the plaintiff No. 4 on 30-1-61 (Ext. 5 ).

(2.) ONE Maheswar Bisi had four sons Gour, Bhara Sama and Dama. The plaintiff no. 1 is the daughter of Dama while the plaintiff No. 2 is the grand-daughter of sama and the plaintiff No. 3 is the daughter of Gour. As already stated the plaintiff no. 4 (original defendant No. 10) is the widow of Ratna who happens to be the son of Bharat. The plaintiffs contended that the property in dispute belonged to Bharat and had been inherited by Ratna. Ratna died more than 30 years prior to the litigation. His widow, the plaintiff No. 4, got herself mutated and was in possession. She made a gift under Ext. 5 in favour of the plaintiffs 1 to 3. The defendants 1 and 2 created trouble over possession of the property. A proceeding under section 145 Cr. P. C. followed and terminated in favour of the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs came to court asking for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession. They contended that in case any part of the property was under mortgage it be declared that the mortgage has been redeemed by operation of law under the provisions of the Orissa Money Lenders Act.

(3.) THE defendants 1 and 2 alone contested. Their defence was that though the property belonged to Ratna some of these properties were mortgaged by him to bhunja Jhankar in February 1920 and in March 1923. They specified the details of such properties in their written statement. The properties were mortgaged from time to time with the defendants and, those that were not covered by the mortgage were permanently leased out by Ratna to the father of the defendants 1 and 2 in the vear 1928. Ever since then the defendants remained in possession. In the written statement the property in dispute was indicated in two schedules--one covered by the lease and the other covered by the mortgage. They pleaded loss of title of the plaintiffs or their donor as they had no possession within the statutory period.