KORADA GEDHA Vs. RAGHABO PATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff against the appellate judgment of the additional District Judge of Berhampur reversing the judgment of the additional Munsif of berhampur and dismissing with costs the plaintiffs' suit for declaration of their status as raiyats in respect of the suit lands and for other consequential reliefs,

(2.) THE suit lands measure 3. 15 acres and bear survey numbers 5/3, 6/7 and 9/2 in village Gumma Bira-Singpur which was formerly situated jn the zamindari of bodokhimedi, prior to its being taken over by the Government of Orissa under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. It is admitted that in the finally published record of rights on 1942 (which was republished in 1950) the lands have been recorded in the names of the defendants as raiyats with rights of occupancy under the zamindar. The presumption of correctness attaching to the Settlement entry will prevail unless the contrary is proved by the plaintiffs as required by Subsection (3) of Section 167 of the Madras Estates Land Act 1908.

(3.) THE plaintiffs alleged that the lands were the raiyati lands of two persons, named Keshab Muli and Gangadhar Muli from whom their ancestor purchased the same by a registered sale deed dated 3-3-1909 Ext. 1. Since then the plaintiffs' family continued in possession of the property as raiyats and used to pay bhag rent to the Zamindar. A receipt for raj bhag of paddy (Ext. 2) of the year 1913 was also proved to establish their possession. They also relied on certain cess receipts (Exts. 2-b to 2-f) of the years 1922 to 1927 to show that they paid cess for the disputed lands to the village Munsif. On 26-8-27 a notice was issued to the plaintiffs (Ext. 2-a) by the Court of Wards which was then in management of the bodokhimedi Zamindary, to pay Raj Bhagam to the Court of Wards and not to the zamindar (ancestor of the defendants) whose inam was alleged to have been resumed. The plaintiffs relied also on this document to prove their possession, on 26-3-27. Thereafter there is no documentary evidence of possession on the side of the plaintiffs though it was alleged that they continued all along in possession as raiyats and that they used to pay rent to the Zamindar and obtained receipts. Though the plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of those receipts none of them was produced in Court. The Settlement entry in favour of the defendants was challenged as incorrect having been brought about by their machinations taking advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim was mainly based on the sale deed of 1909 which is their deed of title coupled with the evidence of actual possession of the disputed property all along.