CHAIN KAR Vs. DINABANDHU SATAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against a judgment of Ray J. (as he then was). The only point which emerges for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent 'shikmi' tenancy right in the suit lands which cover an area of 1.20 acres as recorded in the cadastral survey, bearing a rental of Rs. 6/3/-. The lands have been recorded as 'khas dakhli' lands of defendants 1 to 4, but in the earlier survey the lands were recorded in the name of one Natha Satapathy as a 'shikmi' tenant under these defendants. The survey records also show that the lands appertain to 'bazyaftidar sthiti-ban' holding of the defendants.

(2.) The suit to which this appeal relates was filed by the plaintiffs now respondents before us, for' declaration that they had permanent 'shikmi' intet est in the lands in suit, and also for confirmation of possession. The plaintiffs' case was that the land in question had been settled by the ancestor of defendants 1 to 4, one Dinabandhu Kar, with the plaintiffs' ancestor, one Shyam Charan Satapathy in Chaitra 1296 (Oriya Sambat) in permanent 'shikmi' interest, and Natha Satapathy recorded in the revisional survey was the son of the original settlee. It appears that in 1906 there was liti-mation between the descendants of Dinabandhu and the descendants of Shyam Satapathy leading to a suit for damages which resulted in a compromise. The plaintiffs alleged that by virtue of this compromise Natha Satapathy was recognised as a permanent 'shikmi' tenant of the lands, and he was accordingly so recorded in the revisional survey proceedings which followed thereafter. The cadastral survey operations came in 1928 when the lands were recorded as 'khas dakhli' lands of defendants 1 to 4, and the plaintiffs challenged this entry as collusive. They alleged that in spite of this entry, they continued to be in possession of the lands but the defendants interfered with their possession on the basis of the survey entry and a collusive compromise decree obtained by them against defendant 5, who was originally a 'bhag' tenant of the plaintiffs. This was the alleged cause of action for the suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendants 2 4 only who denied that the lands were filed in permanent 'shikmi' tenancy with (sic) Satapathy as alleged or with the ancestor of the plaintiffs; and their case was that the defendants were in possession of the lands; and that they had obtained a valid compromise decree against defendants 5 and 6, who were in possession, but who had since given up possession thereof.