RAMA CHANDRA Vs. GADADHAR MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second Appeal is by the plaintiff against a reversing decree.

(2.) The suit was for a declaration of title to and confirmation of possession over the land in dispute measuring 48 decimals which stand recorded in the names of Arta Sethi and Dama Seth as Desa Heta Dhoba Jagir in the C. S. record of rights finally published in the year 1928--vide Ext. 3. Arta died issueless leaving behind him his widow Fakiri Bewa. Dama died leaving behind him his son Saratha. The plaintiff claiming himself to be the son of Saratha came to court with the allegation that he had inherited the half-share of Saratha and had purchased the remaining half-share from Fakiri Bewa by a registered sale deed. Thus, he claimed to be the full owner of the entire 48 decimals of land. After abolition of the intermediary interest, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 8 (3) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act for settlement of the land in his favour. The application was contested by the defendants who are Brahmin Mahajans of village Brahmanpada. The plaintiffs application was rejected by the O. E. A. Collector on the ground of non-maintainability. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application before the O. E. A. Collector and an area of 45 decimals out of the suit land was settled in their favour and the remaining area of 3 decimals with the houses standing thereon was settled in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, claimed to have been in possession of the entire 0.48 acre. He came to court as the defendants created troubles in his possession taking advantage of settlement of 45 decimals of land in their favour.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants on the grounds that the plaintiff is not the son of Saratha and that the sale by Fakiri Bewa to the plaintiff was illegal as the disputed land being service jagir land was not transferable. Their further contention was that after the death of Dama and Arta, the land was resumed by the ex-landlord and settled with the deity Jagulei Thakurani through the Brahmin Mahajans of the village as its marafatdars in the year 1930. It was also contended that the suit was bad for nonjoinder of the deity Jagulei Thakurani and it was hit by Section 39 of the O. E. A. Act. It was further contended that the defendants had perfected their title to the suit land by adverse possession.