Das, J. - (1.) THE Defendants have preferred both these appeals challenging the decision dated 18 -4 -1960 of the Additional Sub -ordinate Judge, Cuttack, in Title Appeal Nos. 171 and 172 of 1956, confirming with modification the decision dated 6 -9 -1956 of the Additional Munsif of Cuttack in Title Suits Nos. 156 and 158 of 1952.
(2.) THE Plaintiffs' case is that the suit -properties forming part of the river -bed of Mahanadi were recorded as Anabadi and Nijchas under Touzi Nos. 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965 of the Cuttack Collectorate. The original Touzis having been partitioned, the Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 156/52 got four annas in each of the Touzis 1964 and 1965 whereas the Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 158/52 got the balance of twelve annas interest in these two Touzis. In Touzi No. 1962 Ganesh Prasad Bhagat and his cosharers had sixteen annas interest while in Touzi No. 1963 the Raja of Kanika had the entire sixteen annas interest. These properties were the subject -matter of partition in Title Suit No. 6 of 1953 in which the Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 6 of 1953 in which the Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 156 of 1952 got 270.93 acres and the Plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 158/52 got 657.76 acres in their share. The Defendants were catching fish in the deep -water areas of Mahanadi on the suit plots for a considerably long time merely as lessees from year to year and the Plaintiffs in order to determine the lease -hold right of the Defendants, served them with registered notice asking them not to fish with effect from the last day of Jyastha 1359, and to give up possession by the said date. The Defendants inspite of the notice failed to give up possession and the Plaintiffs have therefore filed the present suits for a declaration that whatever rights the Defendants had acquired for catching fish over the area, had been determined with effect from the last day of Jyastha 1359, and for delivery of possession of the fishery appertaining to the aforesaid Touzis. They also claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 100/ -. They also further prayed for an injunction against the Defendants restraining them from catching fish till the disposal of the suits.
(3.) THE Defendants resisted the suits on various grounds. Their main ground was that they were permanent tenants and were not evictable under the law. Alternatively, they claimed adverse possession. It was further contended by them that in view of the vesting of the Touzis in the State of Orissa on 14 -9 -1953, the Plaintiffs were no longer competent to proceed with the suits and the suits were barred under the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (I of 1952). They also challenged the validity of the notice.;