SHYAMAHARI MOHANTY Vs. GADADHARNATH SHARMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE substantial question that falls for consideration in this case is whether the Plaintiff who is the Appellant here is a raiyat as defined in Section 5 of the Orissa Tenancy Act 1913. It has been conceded before me on behalf of the Respondents that in case it is found that at the relevant time the Plaintiff was a raiyat of the lands in suit, the suit as framed has to be decreed and the appeal, allowed. But in case it is found that he was not a raiyat then the suit and the appeal both have to be dismissed.

(2.) THE lands in suit covering an area of 4.92 acres fall in village Chandiagarh. Out of it, 2.15. acres appertain to plot No. 281 of Khata No. 266, .51 acre appertains to plot t Nos. 35 and 36 of khata No. 276, 1.52 acres appertain to plot No. 950 of khata No. 56, and 1.14 acres appertain to plot No. 951 of khata No. 56. This village Chandiagarh originally formed part of the Aul Estate which vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act with effect from 1 -4 -1954. The lands in suit were formerly the tenancy holding of two raiyats Krishna Chandra Sarangi and Bhagaban Mandal. It appears that in the year 1925 -26 this village Chandiagarh was in possession of the Rani of Aul as tenure -holder and these two tenants had defaulted in payment of rent. Accordingly certain certificate proceedings were taken against those tenants and in due course their holdings were got auction sold. In that auction sale they were purchased by the Rani herself. The claim of the Plaintiff is that subsequently these lands were settled with him orally by delivery of possession and as such he remained in possession thereof till sometime May 1957 or 1958. In the meantime it is stated that there was a proceeding taken by Defendants 1 to 3 under Section 145 Code of Criminal Procedure against some third parties. These proceedings were ultimately decided on 19 -12 -1955 in favour of Defendants 1 to 3 and in view of the order passed in that proceeding they forcibly disposed the Plaintiff, sometime thereafter. Hence the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of these lands, which was instituted on 17 -5 -195S. In the plaint 5 persons have been impleaded as Defendants. Defendants 1 to 3 are the main contesting Defendants. The plea set up in defence on their behalf is that these lands were settled with them by the Raja of Aul sometime in the year 195 and as such they have been in possession thereof uptill now. They have strongly challenged the claim of the Plaintiff that he had ever been the settled raiyat of the village or the occupancy raiyat of the lands in suit. Accordingly it has been prayed on their behalf that the suit as constituted should be dismissed. So far as Defendants 4 and 5 are concerned, they are the Tahasildar and the Collector of the area wherein these lands in dispute fall. They have supported the case of Defendants 1 to 3 but have not very seriously taken any interest in the case.

(3.) THE view taken by the lower appellate Court seems to have been very much influenced by the definition of the word 'tenant' as given in the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955. There in the word 'tenant' in Section 2(j) has been defined as follows: