NATABAR BEHERA Vs. BATAKRUSHNA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff against a reversing judgment of the lower appellate Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction.

(2.) Plaintiff's case is, one Mahanta Jagannath Das, Marfatdar of the deity Gopal Jew Thakur, executed an unregistered permanent lease deed on 17.1.1937 in favour of the plaintiff who was then a minor, but represented by his father-guardian Ganesh and delivered possession. The plaintiff's father possessed the land as a permanent lessee on payment of Rs. 10/- as the rent per year. The defendant claimed both title and possession in respect of the very same land on the basis of another permanent registered lease deed executed by the said Mahanta on 26.1.1942. It is the case of the defendant that he also took possession of the same land. When dispute arose relating to possession, at the instance of the defendant a proceeding under Section 144, Cr. PC. was initiated which was ultimately converted to a proceeding under Section 145, Cr. P.C. vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 189/67 which was subsequently dropped. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant being the brother of the present Mahanta Shri Basudev Das and being a Police Inspector on the basis of false police reports managed to initiate another proceeding under Section 144. Cr.P.C., vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 334/69 which ultimately went in his favour for which the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

(3.) The lower Court held that the permanent lease deed dated 17.1.1937 in favour of the plaintiff was a valid one and he was in possession of the land in question. Secondly, the lease deed dated 26.1.1942 in favour of the defendant, though registered, was an invalid one, in the absence of prior sanction of the Endowment Commissioner as required under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939. The lower appellate Court reversed both the findings, the correctness of which is challenged in this appeal.