GOKULANANDA PANDA Vs. JAGANNATH PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first party members in M. C. No. 340/81, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the file of the learned Executive Magistrate, Chatrapur, are the present petitioners.

(2.) THE dispute relates to Act 7. 79 cents of land appertaining to plot Nos. 121, 162, 215, 217, 192, 79 and 94 of Khata No. 30 of Moaza khasalapali, plot No. 425 of Khata No. 149 of Mouza Sahapur and plot Nos. 211 and 19 of Khata Nos. 92 and 17 respectively of Mouza Hundata. Admittedly the aforesaid lands belonged to Rahas Pandiani, widow of the late Laxrninarayan Panda. Petitioners' case is that petitioner No. 1 was the adopted son of Laxminarayan Panda and Rahas Pandiani and that he has eight annas interest in the lands of Laxminarayan and her adoptive mother, Rahas Pandiani, has eight annas interest in the lands of the late Laxminarayan Panda including the disputed lands. Petitioner No. 2 is the natural brother and petitioner No. 3 is the natural father of petitioner No. 1 The opposite parties' case, on the other hand, is that petitioner No. 1 is not the adopted son of Laxminarayan and Rahas Pandiani and that after the death of Laxrninarayan his lands including the disputed lands had devolved exclusively on Rahas Pandiani. Thereafter, around the year 1952 Rahas Pandiani on her own right had sold the disputed lands to the opposite parties and others and since then the opposite parties have remained in possession of the lands.

(3.) MR . Bansidhar Baug, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, have submitted at the Bar that there was a civil litigation between the parties wherein the adoption of petitioner No. 1 was under challenge and that this Court in First Appeal No. 61 of 1965 (disposed of on 6. 9. 1972) gave a declaration that petitioner No. 1 was the adopted son of the late Laxminarayan and Rahas Pandiani and that the alienations made by Rahas Pandiani in favour of the opposite parties in respect of the lands forming the subject -matter of the present dispute and other lands were not binding on petitioner No. 1 to the extent of his share therein. As further submitted by counsel, the aforesaid judgment of this Court is at present pending disposal before the Supreme Court.