BAL KRISHNA NANDA Vs. RAMCHANDRA BHUYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant in Second Appeal No. 209 of 1945, namely Balakrishna Nanda is the auction -purchaser of a ryoti holding No. 405, and he filed two suits in the court of the Munsif, Title Suits No. 154 and 155 of 1941, for ejecting the Defendants who were recorded as Sikimi tenants in respect of this holding and whose under ryoti holdings were registered as Nos. 55 and 56. The learned Munsif who tried the suit gave a decree to the Plaintiff for ejectment in respect of holding No. 55 and dismissed the Plaintiff 's suit in respect of holding No. 56. Both the parties preferred appeals to the court of the Subordinate Judge who confirmed the decree of the District Munsif, and both parties have come up in appeal to this Court. Second Appeal No. 209/1945 is the appeal filed by the unsuccessful Plaintiff, Balakrishna Nanda and second appeal No. 219/1945 is the appeal filed by the Defendant against whom a decree in ejectment had been passed.

(2.) IT is not necessary for the purpose of disposing of this appeal to go into all the points that were in controversy before the courts below. The main argument in this Court has turned round the question of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suits. Admittedly in both the suits the Defendants were recorded as under -ryots and the Plaintiff is the purchaser of the ryoti irfterest in the suit holding and the suit is, in essence, a suit by a ryot to eject the under -ryot as contemplated in Section 57 of the Orissa Tenancy Act. That section says that an under -ryot shall not be ejected by his landlord except.

(3.) I agree. Plaints returned.