HISI MANJHI Vs. RAJKISHORE PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of reversal. The trial Court had decreed the suit and the lower appellate Court set aside the decree on an appeal filed by the respondents.

(2.) The suit was originally filed by Mirja Majhi against Parikhit Pradhan and two others who were pro forma respondents. Both Mirja Majhi and Parikhit Pradhan died during the pendency of the suit in the trial Court and their heirs, the present appellants and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were substituted in their place. The suit was filed for declaration of title and for confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession. The assertions on the basis of which the suit was filed were that the suit land were ancestral lands of the appellants and pro forma respondents Nos. 3 and 4. By a mutual agreement of parties the suit land was allotted in the share of the ancestor of the appellants, Bhunda Dukhiya Manjhi. In the year 1933 Bhunda took a loan of Rs. 127/8/- from Gopal Pradhan grandfather of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and executed registered document on 22-8-1933, offering as security the Schedule A lands in the suit. It was stipulated that the loan will be repaid within the end of the month of Sraban 1343 san (1936) and in the event of failure to repay the loan within the stipulated period Gopal Pradhan would be entitled to get the suit land recorded in raiyati right after paying the State dues in accordance with laws and practice then prevailing in the Seraikella State. Although Bunda Dhukiya Manjhi and the pro forma defendants several times offered to repay the loan together with interest before the due date but Gopal Pradhan refused the the same and taking the advantage of illiteracy and simplicity of the plaintiff and the pro forma defendant got the land mutated in the revisional record without going to the Civil Court of Seraikella State in accordance with the laws and practice then prevailing in the Seraikella State. There were several litigations between the parties and in 1958-59 survey Gopal Pradhan got the land recorded in his name.

(3.) The pro forma respondents filed a written statement supporting the case of the appellants. Parikhit Pradhan filed a written statement alleging inter alia that the value of the suit land was about Rs. 9000/- and therefore beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of Munsif where the suit was filed. It was also alleged that the suit was barred by law of limitation. It was contended that as the mortgagor defaulted in paying the mortgage dues within the time stipulated the name of the mortgagee was recorded according to the practice then prevailing in the Seraikella State. There was no necessity for going to the Civil Court for foreclosure of the mortgage as there was no such practice in the Seraikella State then.