BHAGABAN CHUAN Vs. BHAGABAT CHARAN BHANJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Balasore upholding a decision of the Munsif of Balasore decreeing the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that they and not defendants 8 to 19 are the tenants under defendants 1 to 3 in respect of the disputed lands, for confirmation of their possession therein and for restraining defendants 8 to 19 from interfering with their possession and for damages. Defendant No. 1 is a deity represented by the marfatdar defendant no. 2. Defendant No. 3 is the Endowment Commissioner and defendants 4 to 7 are trustees appointed by the Commissioner in respect of the deity. The case of the plaintiffs is that the ancestors of the defendants 8 to 19 had taken lease of the disputed lands from the marfatdar of the deity for a period of nine years commencing from 1327 Sal, that after expiry of the lease, the marfatdar took khas possession of the lands and cultivated the same till 1342 and thereafter leased out the lands to the plaintiffs and that since then the plaintiffs are in possession of the same. It is alleged that on 30-11-1943, defendants 8 to 19 cut and carried away the crops. It is therefore, that the plaintiffs filed this suit claiming the reliefs above-mentioned.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 8 to 19 admitted having taken the lands on lease from marfatdar in 1327 Sal for a period of nine years but alleged that even after the expiry of the period of lease, they possessed the suit lands and acquired sthitiban right therein-According to them, the plaintiffs never possessed the lands. It was also contended by them that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Defendants 1 to 7 supported the plaintiff's case.

(3.) THE trial court held that defendants 8 to 19 to whom the lands were leased out for a period of 9 years in 1327 Sal gave up possession of the same after expiry of the period of lease, that the marfatdar thereafter remained in khas possession of the lands on behalf of the deity till 1342 Sal when the plaintiffs were inducted as tenants therein and that the latter are still in possession of the lands. Holding further that the suit is maintainable in the Civil Court, he passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. All the findings recorded by the trial court were affirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge. Hence this appeal by defendants 8 to 19.