SAROJINI DEVI Vs. BIKRAM NANDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point which gives rise to this appeal is Are the contesting Defendants 1 and 2 statutory tenants created by the Orissa Tenants Relief Act 1955? The definition of tenant under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act so far as material is this tenant means a person who under the system generally known as Bhag, Sanja or Karta or such similar expression, or under any other system, law, contract, custom or usage cultivates the land of another person on payment of rent in cash or in kind or in both or on condition of delivering to that person.

(2.) ARE Defendants 1 and 2, who are the separated first cousins of the landlord Plaintiff 's husband, members of the landlord 's family so as to be excluded from the definition of tenant within the meaning of the Act? The point arose in the circumstances hereinafter stated.

(3.) THE Plaintiff 's case so far as material is this the said three branches of the family were separate and the Kha schedule lands were allotted to the share of the Plaintiff 's husband. She was in possession of the same through bhag tenants. The Gn. schedule property was not divided and she was in joint possession of the same with other co -sharers. It is said that the Plaintiff had let, out Kha schedule lands to Sasibhusan Defendant No. 3 and Gadadhar Defendant No. 4. But as their cultivation was not satisfactory they voluntarily quitted the same. Thereafter, in 1960, the Plaintiff let out the same to one Lokanath Bhoi who deposed as P.W. 6. Defendants 1 and 2 who are separated first cousins of the Plaintiff 's husband and had no connection with the lands, dispossessed the said Lokanath Bhoi from certain plots and forcibly took possession of other lands. The Plaintiff started a criminal case in which Defendant No. 1 was sentenced to pay fine. Defendants 1 and 2 did not quit the suit lands. Thereupon the Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. Defendants 3 to 5 supported the Plaintiff 's case. The suit was contested by the said two separated first cousins of the Plaintiff, Defendants 1 and.