KRUSHNA CHANDRA PADHAN AND ANR. Vs. KAUSALYA BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhawanipatna affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of the same place in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession or in the alternative, recovery of possession of the suit lands described in schedules 'A' and 'B' of the plaint. The Respondent was the Plaintiff and the Appellants were the Defendants in the suit.

(2.) THE case of the Plaintiff is stated in brief with reference to the following genealogy:

(3.) THE learned Sub -Judge held that the suit lands were not abandoned in the year 1943 -44. Toe Tahasildar had no authority to settle the same in favour of the Appellants. By such settlement if any, the Appellant, did not acquire a valid title. Further the Appellants were not in possession of the suit lands. On the other hand, the Respondent was in possession thereat although. The learned Additional District Judge on review of the evidence affirmed the aforesaid findings. He further examined the question of adverse possession and held that the Appellants did not even acquire title in respect of the suit lands by such possession. One of the observations made by the learned lower appellate court was that according to the undisputed position, the Central Provinces land Revenue Act, 1881 is applicable to Kalahandi district (former Kalahandi State). Taking the cue from this observation the second appeal was admitted to consider the question as to whether the Central' Provinces land Revenue Act, 1881 applied to the Ex -State of Kalahandi and the present Kalahandi district after merger of the former feudatory State with Orissa State.