RAMACHANDRA PANDA AND ANR. Vs. INDRAMANI MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants against an affirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title and recovery.

(2.) The suit land measures Ac. 0.039 decimals appertaining to plot No. 741, Khata No. 59 of Mauza Kundheibcnta Sahi with house standing thereon. The suit is also for recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 360.00 at the rate of Rs. 10.00 per month. The suit land was Amrutmanohi Lakhraj Niskar Baheli land of Kousalyadas Math in Puri Town. The plaintiffs case in a nutshell is that one Radha Dei obtained a registered lease deed in respect of Ac. 0.050 decimals from the Math for a period of 20 years with effect from 6.2.1993 under Ex. 1. But actually she possessed only Ac. 0.008 decimals by constructing a house on it. The lease was valid till 1953. Said Radha Dei executed a sale-deed in favour of plaintiff's wife, Sakhisundari under Ext. 2, dated 20.12.1949 in respect of Ac. 0.033 decimals with a house standing there for a consideration of Rs. 2,000.00 and delivered possession of the same. The Mahantexecuted fresh lease fora period of 20 years on 20.6.1952 in respect of Ac. 0.039 decimal as per Ext. 3 in favour of Sakhisundari. the plaintiff's wife. On 1.4.53, the plaintiff on behalf of his wife inducted defendant No. 1 as a tenant in respect of one of the rooms and said defendant No. 1 remained there with his wife defendant No. 2 and paid rent at the rate of Rs. 10.00 per month till 30.11.1953. It was further alleged that the defendants forcibly occupied the other room which was under lock and key taking advantage of plaintiff's absence. Plaintiff's wife as the landlord of the house in question filed an application for eviction of the defendants under the Orissa House Rent Control Act in the year 1968 which was registered as H.R.C.Case No. 48 of 1968. In that proceeding the defendants took the stand that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the plaintiff's wife and, on the other hand, they claimed title on the basis of oral lease from the Mahant of Kausalyadas Math. That house rent control proceeding was allowed by the Controller by this order dated 6.5.1969, but an appeal being carried which was registered as H.R.C. Appeal No. 7 of 1969, the appeal was allowed. The matter was carried to this Court in a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No. 1065 of 1970 and that writ petition was disposed of by order dated 29.5.1970 and the house rent control appeal was remitted back to the appellate authority with a direction that the appellate authority should decide the question of abatement and then dispose of the matter on merits. The question of abatement arose as Sakhisundari died during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority, but no substitution had been made. After remand, the appellate authority set aside the abatement and on merits came to hold that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This order of the appeal late authority is dated 17.9.1974. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff obtained a fresh lease for a period of 20 years under Ext. 4 on 18.9.1973. The intermediary estate vested under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act by notification dated 18.3.1974. The plaintiff issued a notice under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Acton 6.1.1975 terminating the tenancy and on 15.1.1975 the suit was filed for the relief as already staled.

(3.) The defendants in their written statement took the stand that defendant No. 1 had taken the disputed hind on oral lease from Kousalyadas Math and constructed a house thereon. They also pleaded a case of perfection title by adverse possession. The defendants further pleaded that the plea of relationship of landlord and tenant in respect of the disputed land together with the house standing thereon having been negatived in the House Rent Control proceeding, the plaintiff is not entitled to raise that plea again and the Civil Court cannot come to a finding contrary to the finding of the Controller.