GOBINDA CHANDRA PATNAIK Vs. RANI HARSA MUKHI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent in her capacity as the executrix of the estate of the late Raja M.C. Singh Bahadur, O.B.E., brought a number of suits to recover khas possession of certain lands by ejectment of defendants therefrom and for mesne profits. According to the valuation of the different suits six of them were filed in the Court of the Second Munsif at Puri, while four other suits were filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack. In both the Courts all the suits were tried together and the plaintiff was unsuccessful in her action throughout. She then preferred two sets of appeals respectively from the decisions of the Munsif and the Subordinate Judge, and in respect of the three appeals with which we are at present concerned the lower appellate Court has reversed the decisions of the trial Courts and decreed the plaintiff's suits.

(2.) The defendants of these three suits are now the appellants before this Court. Second appeals Nos. 138 of 1932 and 8 of 1933, respectively, arise out of the decision of the Subordinate Judge in Title Appeals Nos. 147 and 146 arising out of suits Nos. 167 and 208 disposed of by the Munsif; and Second Appeal No. 28 of 1933 arises out of the decision of the District Judge in Title Appeal No. 53 which arose from suit No. 29 disposed of by the Subordinate Judge. It may be noted here that in respect of one out of the four suits tried in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, on account of higher valuation the present plaintiff-respondent had already preferred an appeal to this Court which was heard and disposed of by my Lord the Chief Justice and Kulwant Sahay, J., and their Lordships decisionis reported in Harsamukhi Dasi V/s. Parsuram Bidhan Rai 1933 Pat 74.

(3.) The facts of the case are briefly these; The predecessors of the deceased Raja M.C. Singh Bahadur of Paikpara had purchased the villages in dispute in the year 1809, but as they refused to take settlement of the estate from the British authorities in the period which preceded and followed the first settlement of 1837 the estate had been declared recusant. Under the orders then made the collection of the revenue had been placed in the hands of "sarbarakars" by the authorities and the owners were given a small property by way of malikana of the revenue in recognition of their proprietary right. In the year 1900 Mr. R. Mitter, Barrister-at- law, who happened to be the receiver of the estate, decided that the period of recusancy should be terminated and he accordingly took settlement of the estate from the Collector executing a kabuliat.