LAWS(ORI)-1972-2-1

KRUSHNA CHANDRA PANI Vs. BALI SAHU

Decided On February 14, 1972
KRUSHNA CHANDRA PANI Appellant
V/S
BALI SAHU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the concurrent decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri. The plaintiff had sued for title and possession in respect of a house standing on the disputed property and had claimed for recovery of arrears of house rent and damages all amounting to Rs. 96-25. Originally the plaintiff sued for recovery of arrears of rent only and had filed the suit in the S. C. C. Court. The defendant denied the plaintiff's title. Therefore, the plaint in the S. C. C. suit was returned and a comprehensive suit for title was instituted with a claim for the aforesaid reliefs.

(2.) THE plaintiff alleged that the disputed property which is 9 decimals was purchased by his mother and his parents were in possession of the property. After them he has succeeded to it. The defendant as a tenant is residing on plot No. 111 under Ananda Pani, As that accommodation was insufficient he asked the plaintiff to let out the house standing on the disputed property on monthly basis and the plaintiff accepted the defendant as a tenant with effect from 15-2-1962 at a rent of Rs. 250/- per month. The defendant is said to have paid rent for three months after the commencement of the tenancy but with effect from 16-5-1962 he defaulted. The plaintiff, therefore, ultimately came with the suit.

(3.) THE defendant denied the claim of tenancy and contended that the disputed property belonged to Shyamsundar Deb Thakur and the defendant had been in possession of the disputed property for more than 31 years prior to the suit by raising the construction upon the property. The defendant claimed that he was a bhagchasi under the deity. Hari Pani, the marfatdar of the deity, is said to have inducted the defendant on permanent basis in respect of the land and the defendant claimed that he had raised the construction. He thus pleaded that he was the owner of the house and was a permanent tenant not liable to eviction. He also claimed that the court had no jurisdiction to maintain the suit.