RAMKRISHNA DEO Vs. KAMALANATH ROY, DIED AFTER HIM SMT. JAGANMOHINI ALIAS K. JAGANMOHINI AND ORS.
LAWS(ORI)-1973-3-21
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on March 15,1973

Ramkrishna Deo Appellant
VERSUS
Kamalanath Roy, Died After Him Smt. Jaganmohini Alias K. Jaganmohini And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.K.Misra, J. - (1.) THE Plaintiff is the adopted son of late Maharaja Dr. Vikaram Deb Varma of Jeypore who died on 15 -4 -1951. There is no dispute that on his death the Plaintiff inherited all the properties of the late Maharaja. The Plaintiff 's case is that the Defendant is the illegitimate son of the late Maharaja through a concubine. Though the Defendant was entitled to maintenance he was not entitled to any right of residence. The disputed house belonged to the Maharaja. The Defendant was allowed to occupy the same in the year 1948. As he has no right of occupation he was called upon by the Plaintiff to vacate the house. But as he refused to vacate the house, the suit was filed on 28 -7 -1965 for eviction and for damages of Rs. 3000/ - from 1 -9 -1964 to 30 -6 -1965. Relief was sought in respect of future damages also.
(2.) IN the written statement the Defendant admitted that the Plaintiff was the adopted son of late Maharaja and that on his death he inherited all his properties and got compensation from the Government on the abolition of the estate sometime in 1952. The Defendant 's main case is that the house was gifted away to him by the late Maharaja to whom his mother was married in Gandharba form and that he has acquired a title by prescription being in possession for more than 12 years in his own right, title and interest. In the alternative he also pleaded that he was entitled to right of residence, and until a suitable house was provided to him he was entitled to continue in the suit house. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the Defendants failed to establish that he acquired title to the disputed house by adverse possession. He was of the view that the initial occupation was permissive and the Defendant always continued in permissive possession. On the alternative plea taken by the Defendant that he was entitled to maintenance and residence, the learned Subordinate Judge accepted the defence case. He accordingly dismissed the suit. The Plaintiff has filed this appeal.
(3.) THE learned advocates for the parties bring to our notice the fact that the Defendant died on 13 -4 -1972. On his death his legal heirs, Respondents I -a to I -j were substituted. These legal heirs include the widow, sons and daughters of late Kamalanath Ray, the original Defendant.;


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