NARAN BANDHU BALLIAR SINGH Vs. LOKENATH SANTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the appellate judgment of the Additional Subordinate judge, Purl, reversing the judgment of the Munsif of Khurda and decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit properties which consists of R. S. holding No. 431 of mouza Atri and R. S. holding no. 418 of mouza Bhagmari having a total area of 6. 433 acres. The disputed properties were recorded as Dalai Jagir in the Settlement papers. The plaintiff's case was that the Jagir had been granted to one of his ancestors by the independent Hindu Kings of Orissa long before the advent of the British, that it was heritable and that the properties were all along in the possession of the plaintiff's family from generation to generation. It was admitted however, that some services were required to be rendered to the State. But it was contended that though the properties were thus burdened with service, nevertheless, they were heritable and that if the service was not performed the only right that the State had was to assess the properties to lull rent.

(2.) THE admitted recorded Jagirdar was the plaintiff's adoptive father Harekrushna santra. Sometime in 1951 the revenue officials of Khurda after due enquiry held that on account of his age and his addiction to opium Harekrushna was unable to discharge his duties and that he therefore relinquished his office. Thereupon, on the report of the Tahsildar the then Sub-divisional Officer of Khurda, Shri Burney by his order dated the 2nd October, 1951 (Ext. C) directed that the defendant-who is none else but the daughter's son of Harekrushna--be appointed as the holder of the Dalai Jagir in preference to the plaintiff who was his adopted son. In pursuance of this order, the defendant took over the duties of the Dalai and also obtained possession of the properties. Harekrushna died on the 11th March, 1953, and thereupon the plaintiff again applied to the revenue officials (Ext. C (1)) for being appointed as Dalai in his father's place. But the Sub-divisional Officer in his recommendation to the Collector dated the 10th June, 1954 pointed out that the defendant was working satisfactorily as Dalai ever since his appointment by Sri burney in 1951, that the plaintiff had become old and diseased and unfit for the post, and that therefore there was no necessity to reconsider the orders passed by sri Burney. The then Collector Sri S. C. Patro accepted this recommendation, by his Order dated 24th November, 1951. Sometime in 1954, on the abolition of the zamindary system, the jagir was abolished, and the lands were settled on a ryoti basis with the defendant whose name was also recorded in the Current Settlement proceedings. The plaintiff therefore brought the suit under appeal for a declaration that the entire resumption proceedings of 1951 and 1954 were invalid and inoperative, that his heritably interest in the properties could not be extinguished by these proceedings and that he was not entitled to recover possession of the properties and for other consequential reliefs.

(3.) THE defendant's main contention was that the Dalai Jagir was not heritable property, but that so long as the incumbent was discharging the duties of a Dalai he was entitled to possess the properties and that when the defendant was appointed Dalai on the 2nd October 1951 he came into possession, but subsequently after the abolition of the Jagir the same properties were settled with him on an, occupancy raiyati basis by the Government.