JATIA PANIGRAHI Vs. GOBINDA PATRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Plaintiff's second appeal against the reversing judgment of the lower appellate court arising out of a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession on the ejectment of the Defendants on the allegation made in the plaint that the Defendants were inducted on the land in dispute on the basis of an annual verbal lease in the year 1952, which was to expire on the 31st December 1952; and they not having vacated the suit land in accordance with the terms of the oral lease, the present suit has been brought.

(2.) THE land in suit is situate in the ex -state of Sonepur and the acreage involved is 695. The Defendants on the other hand contended that the ancestors of the Defendants acquired the land in dispute and they are non -evictable tenants. The Defendants had further taken up the plea that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) AS it appears from the settlement record of rights, the land in dispute appertains to Bhogra Holding No. 1/1 and this position is accepted by both parties. There the Defendants have been recorded as Sikmi tenants and they are liable to pay two Purugs of paddy to the Plaintiff. The lower appellate court therefore went wrong in law in dismissing the Plaintiff's suit on the ground it is barred by limitation on account of the position that the Plaintiff had failed to prove his possession within 12 years of the suit. The Plaintiff can very well take advantage of the possession of the Defendants -tenants possession as his own possession. If the Defendant's possession is to be calculated as adverse possession the tenancy must have ceased before 12 years to be calculated from the date of the suit. But this is not the position in the present case. While vacating the finding of the lower appellate court that the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation I am of the opinion that suit must be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. Prima facie it appears that the relationship between the parties is one between landlord and tenant. Mr. Ranjit Mohanty, appearing on behalf of the Respondents -tenants, has drawn my attention to Clause (a) of Section 7 of the Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950 (Orissa Act No. IV of 1950) which runs as follows: