TULASI BEWA Vs. LILANKA SASHI RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order passed on 16.05.1998 by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Banpur in M.J.C. No. 4 of 1991 and the confirming order passed on 6.2.1999 in Civil Revision No. 10 of 1998 by the Learned Addl. District Judge, Khurda are under challenge.

(2.) PETITIONERS claim to be the legal representatives of late Rankanath Behera. Opposite Party members are the decree -holders being the heirs and successors of late Ananga Sashi Ray. The disputed property admittedly was recorded in the name of Ananga Sashi Ray. According to the case of Rankanath Behera, the said land was settled in his favour under Section 9 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (in short, 'OLR Act') as per order of Tahasildar, Banpur in O.L.R. Case No. 132 of 1970 and therefore, Title Suit No. 14 of 1980 filed by the Opposite Parties and the decree obtained therein for title and recovery of possession is not executable, inasmuch as, the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred under Section 67 of the O.L.R. Act. Accordingly, legal representatives of Rankanath filed application under Section 47, CPC in Execution Case No. 2 of 1990 of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Banpur. That application was registered as M.J.C. No. 4 of 1991. Decree holders/ Opposite Party members opposed to that application, inter alia, on the assertion that Rankanath was allowed to stay in the premises as a servant of Ananga Sashi Ray. Rankanath attempted to get land recorded in his name and accordingly, he filed OLR Case No. 19 of 1966 -67. The owner of the property (Ananga Sashi Ray) contested that case and the O.L.R. case was dismissed. Rankanath challenged that order in O.L.R. Appeal, but without any result. Ananga Sashi Ray died on 31.3.1970. After his death, suppressing aforesaid material fact, Rankanath again filed O.L.R Case No. 132 of 1973 and obtained an order behind the back of the Plaintiffs/ decree holders. Thus, that order of the Revenue Officer was challenged as nullity and suit was filed. That suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff for recovery of possession and therefore, that decree is not barred under Section 67 of the O.L.R. Act and accordingly, the decree is executable. - -

(3.) PETITIONERS reiterated the same contention and argued that in view of the ratio in the cases of Brajabehari Patnaik v. Hari Behera and Ors. 1984 (I) OLR 406 and Dama Swain v. Gangadhar Mohapatra 1986 (I) OLR 268, jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the suit was without jurisdiction and, therefore, the decree is a nullity and not executable.