BIRANCHI PRADHAN AND ORS. Vs. JAGANNATH PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful Defendants in both the Courts below have preferred this Second Appeal. Admittedly the Plaintiff (Respondent herein) is the owner of the suit land comprising of an area of 2.81 decimals in Mouza Basudia. The Plaintiff 's case in short is that late Maguni Pradhan, the father of Defendant no. 1 and husband of Defendant No. 2, was the Bhag tenant under the Plaintiff in respect of the suit land. The said Maguni Pradhan died in October 1964 and thereafter the Plaintiff took khas possession of the suit land and cultivated the same. After some time Defendants 1 and 2 as well as Defendant No. 3 (brother of late Maguni Pradhan) dispossessed the Plaintiff falsely alleging that they were the tenants in respect of the suit land. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are mere trespassers and they have absolutely no interest in the suit land, and on that assertion the Plaintiff prays for a declaration of his title to and recovery of possession of the suit land by evicting the Defendants therefrom.

(2.) THE trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the Defendants were rank trespassers on the suit land and hence they were liable to be evicted. It also found that no case under the O.T.R. Act in respect of the suit property was pending between the parties to the suit and so the suit was maintainable in the civil Court. On the above findings the Plaintiff 's suit was decreed with costs. The Defendants went upon in appeal against the decree of the trial Court. The Appellate Court finds that the claim of the Defendants that they have occupancy right over the, suit land has not been established; that Defendant No. 3 and/or the other Defendants were not bhag -tenants in respect of the suit lands; that the Defendants have failed to establish that they are tenants in respect of the suit lands and so their possession of the same is unlawful; as the Defendants are mere trespassers on the suit lands the Plaintiff is entitled to evict them therefrom. The Appellate Court has also concurred with the finding of the trial Court that by the time of the disposal of the present suit no case under the O.T.R. Act was pending between the parties in the O.T.R. Court in respect of the suit land and as such the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. It also finds that no case under the O.L.R. Act between the parties was pending for disposal by the time of the disposal of the present suit and as such the civil Court was competent to decide the disputes between the parties. On the above findings the Defendants appeal was dismissed.

(3.) THE beneficial provisions of the Act should be liberally construed and if really the legislature intends that certain disputes for which provisions have been made in the Act should be tried not by the ordinary civil Courts but by the Tribunals specially designated by the Act then those disputes cannot be entertained by the civil Courts. At the same time it must be borne in mind that if the statute purports to exclude the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil Court it must do so either by express terms or by the use of such terms as would necessarily lead to the inference of such exclusion. Magiti Sasmal v. Pandab Bissoi and Ors., 1962 S.C.D. 83. The Privy Council in the case Secretary of State v. Mask and Company : A.I.R. 1940 P.C. 105 has observed -