Decided on October 03,1950



Panigrahi, J. - (1.) It is not necessary to reserve judgment & keep back my decision from the parties in this case. The facts giving rise to the appeal are simple but; the law argued at the Bar is not as simple.
(2.) The pltf resp. filed a suit in ejectment out of which this appeal arises-in respect of an extent of 136 of. an acre in C. S. Plot no. 2007 in Cuttack Town, against the defts. alleging that they were darpattadars under him in respect of this property. The pltf. served a notice to quit on 19-4-46 & filed the suit a month later. His case was that the deft, is a tanant-at-will & is liable to be evicted at any time. The deft, pleaded that he had a house on the suit holding for at least 70 years & had acquired permanent occupancy right in the land, that the notice to quit was neither proper nor duly served upon him, & that he is protected from eviction by virtue of the recent amendment to Schedule 36, Orissa Tenancy Act, by AOL X [10) of 1946. Exhibit a, the Current Settlement Khatian shows that the status of the deft, in respect of the suit land is that of a dar-pattadar & that of the pltf. Madhyasatvadhikari.
(3.) The learned Munsif found that the origin of the tenancy was not known but that the deft, had been in occupation of the land for over 70 years. He also found that the original lease was for building purposes & that it contained permanent structures, that the defts. had been in possession from father to son for three generations, paying a uniform rent throughout. He further found that the documents relied on by the pltf. did not prove that there was any variation in the amount of rent paid & also observed that he was not inclined to place much reliance on the genuineness of the rent receipts. The learned Munsif recorded a further finding that the notice to quit (Ex. 3) was invalid as it had not been signed by or on behalf of the pltf. The pltf's suit was accordingly dismissed.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.