MANHU MALLIK Vs. GEDI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the first appellate court reversing the decision of the trial Court in favour of the appellants in the suit instituted against the appellants and some others.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' suit is for Declaration of their permanent Sikimi tenancy right under defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the suit land and for confirmation of possession thereof with a declaration that defendants 1 and 2 have the right only to realise rent from the plaintiffs and have no right to khas possession of the suit lands. The plaintiffs further pray to inject the defendants permanently from creating any disturbance in the possession of the suit lands by the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE plaintiff's case shortly stated is that Indramani Behera and the predecessors-in-interest of defendants 3 to 8 were recorded in the C. S. record of rights as Sthitiban tenants in respect of the suit lands. Under Indramani behera and the said defendants, Agani Bewa was in possession of plot No. 2375 as a Sikimi tenant. After her death, Indramani and the other co-owners of the suit lands took over possession of the said plot of land. Indramani, who held the power of attorney on behalf of the other co-owners of the suit land on 11-10-42 leased out the same on annual rent on permanent basis by an unregistered lease deed in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and the predecessor-in-interest of the other plaintiffs. Since that time the plaintiffs are cultivating the suit lands and are possessing the tank therein on their said fight and are regularly paying rent to the landlords. Mainly on the above basis the plaintiffs assert that they have acquired permanent right of sikimi tenancy on the suit lands. They further state that defendants 1 and 2, having purchased the occupancy right in the suit lands from Indramani Behera and the other co-owners of the suit lands, are entitled only to receive the annual rent from the plaintiffs and are not entitled to khas possession of the suit lands. As the defendants started creating difficulties for the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the suit lands they started proceeding under the provisions of Orissa Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the o. L. R. Act) but the revenue officer directed them to take shelter in the civil court. Hence the suit.