BHAI RAMJI Vs. GOVINDA RANTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a claim made by the plaintiff Govinda Rantai under a raiyati patta and permanent lease executed by defendant No. 3 Jaya Jena in respect of the suit lands. Defendant 1 is an auction purchaser at a certain Court sale in an execution case in which defendant No. 2 is the decree holder and defendant No. 3 is the judgment debtor. The auction purchaser defendant No. 1 is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE suit B schedule lands being plot No. 78, holding No. 9 with an area of 1. 26 decimals at village Titilagarh, District Bolangir, originally belonged to defendant no. 3 Jaya Jeni. The said B schedule lands and other lands in A schedule were all defendant Jaya jani's Gounti Rayati lands. Defendant No. 2 Raghunath Mahajan had a money claim and obtained a money decree against defendant Jaya Jani. In execution Case No. 37 of 1955 the decree-holder defendant No. 2 attached the suit lands. At Court sale the appellant auction purchaser defendant No. 1 purchased the same lands. On September 11, 1959 the auction purchaser defendant, took delivery of possession of the suit lands through Court. Thereupon the plaintiff thus dispossessed of the suit lands made an application to Court complaining of such dispossession under Order 21, Rule 100, Civil Procedure Code claiming to have been in possession of the suit lands in his own right which he acquired under a rayati patta and permanent lease. The plaintiff's said application was dismissed. On December 21, 1960 the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over B schedule lands and for a declaration that the sale of the suit lands in the said execution case in favour of auction purchaser defendant is invalid and not binding on the plaintiff, possession and other incidental reliefs.

(3.) THE basis of the plaintiff's title to the suit lands is this: On March 12, 1940 when defendant No. 3 Jaya Jani was a minor his guardian inducted the plaintiff's undivided uncle Kasi Rantai as raiyat under an unregistered raiyati patta Ex. 6 of schedule A lands including the suit lands in Schedule B. Since then the plaintiff and his uncle were in possession of the suit lands. In 1951 the plaintiff's uncle died and since thereafter the plaintiff has been in possession. In the meantime on April 2, 1948 defendant No. 3 Jaya Jani on having attained majority along with his cosharers executed a registered permanent lease Ex. 5 in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs case is that he has been in possession in his own right and that he is not bound by the auction sale to defendant No. 1, and that the said defendant No. 1 has not acquired an right under his purchase at Court sale.