MANIKA DEI Vs. DHADIA MADGUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order passed by the learned Munsif, First Court, Cuttack rejecting a petition under S.10 of the Civil P.C. ('Code' for short). The plaintiffs are the petitioners.

(2.) The facts may be recounted in brief. Deceased Nilap Naga was the owner of the schedule 'C' land of the plaint. He had one son, opposite party No. 2(b) and four daughters, petitioner 1, opposite party No. 2(c), opposite party No. 2(d) and Jamuna (defendant No. 2(e) in T.S. No. 132 of 1979). Petitioner No. 2 is the husband and petitioner No. 3 is the son of petitioner 1. Opposite party No. 1 is the husband of opposite party No. 2(c). Opposite party No. 1 initiated two proceedings (H.R.C. Case No. 32 of 1979 and H.R.C. Case No. 52 of 1979) against the petitioners under S.7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act ('Act' for short) before the learned House Rent Controller, Cuttack on the grounds that there was an agreement for sale of the schedule 'C' and with a house standing thereon for consideration of Rs. 3,000/- between Nilap Naga and Opposite party No. 1 on 27-11-1978 and on the same day the suit land was delivered by the former to the latter. On 28-3-1979 Nilap Naga executed and registered a sale deed in favour of opposite party No. 1 in respect of the suit land. The petitioners being close relations were inducted as monthly tenants at will in respect of the house on the suit land with effect from 1-12-1978 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- and again with effect from 1-4-1979 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. Opposite party No. 1 required the suit land for his own occupation and further the petitioners defaulted in payment of rent. Therefore, in the two house rent control proceedings, opposite party No. 1 prayed for eviction of the petitioners from the house on the suit land. The petitioners resisted and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant. Their case was that at the time of marriage of petitioner 1 with petitioner 2 in 1944 the latter became the illatom son-in-law of Nilap Naga who made a gift of the suit land with a house thereon in favour of petitioner No. 1 and delivered possession of the suit land to her. After the gift, the petitioners are not only in possession of the same, but also added houses thereto. They have acquired title in respect thereof by adverse possession.

(3.) While the eviction proceedings were pending before the learned House Rent Controller, the petitioners instituted Title Suit No. 132 of 1979 against opposite party No. 1 and others. They alleged in the plaint that at the time of marriage between petitioner 1 and petitioner 2 in the year 1944 Nilap Naga made a gift of the schedule 'C' land to petitioner No. 1. After the marriage, petitioner 2 lived with Nilap Naga as his illatom-son-in-law and both the husband and wife remained in occupation of the schedule 'C' land by adding houses thereto. Since then they have been in possession of the suit land continuously and without interruption to the knowledge of the opposite parties on the strength of their own right and have acquired title by adverse possession. Their prayer is to restrain the opposite parties permanently from entering upon the schedule 'C' land of the plaint. The defence of opposite party No. 1 is that there was an agreement for sale of the schedule 'C' land between him and Nilap Naga on 27-11-1978 in pursuance of which he came into possession thereof. The petitioners were inducted as tenants with effect from 1-12-1978. There was no gift of the suit land by Nilap Naga in favour of petitioner 1, nor were the petitioners in possession thereof since 1944 on the strength of their own right.