BALARAM RAI Vs. MT ICHHA PATRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs, who have lost in both the Courts below, are the sons of one Fakir Charan Rai who held a revenue -free or muafi grant of the village of Nunia Jampalli in Bargarh Sub. Division of Samblpur district. The defendants are purchasers of Fakir's interest at a court sale in execution of a money decree obtained against the plaintiffs' father.

(2.) THE plaintiffs alleged that the village of Nunia Jampalli was granted by HaharajaChhatar Sai to the family of one Lambodar Bai, an ancestor of the plaintiffs, on a permanent and hereditary tenure for doing pujaseba, in the temple of Sri Samaleawari at Samblpur. It is alleged that the grant being one burdened with service and being a Denottar grant, is inalienable and that the court sale in execution of a decree obtained against the plaintiffs' father is void. The plaintiffs admit that the village was being enjoyed in three shares, i.e., an 8 annas share belonging to one Joydeb Bai, a 5 annag 4 pies share belonging to Fakir Bai, the father of the plaintiffs, and a 2 annas 8 pies share belonging to Iswar Bai. Iswar Bai died without leaving any male issue and his widow, Surjyo, used to get the services performed by Fakir and enjoy her share of the income of the village. Surjyo Bai died in the year 1934 or thereabouts and the plaintiffs claim that their father, Fakir, became entitled to the entire 8 annas share.

(3.) THE Courts below held that the members of the plaintiffs' family were undoubtedly the worshippers of goddess Samaleswari, bat that it had not been proved that the grant of the suit village was necessarily connected with service in the temple. The learned Munsif says that 'at the most this can be spoken of as a grant burdened with service' and that consequently the same is alienable. The learned Subordinate Judge observes that there was no evidence that the usufruct of the lands in village was ever used for the sevapuja of the deity and that as the name of the deity does not appear in any of the previous settlements the property must be held to be the personal property of the plaintiffs' ancestors.