SRI SITA RAMACHANDRA MAHAPRABHU Vs. MADANO MAHARANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by an unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for declaration that the defendant-respondent is not a tenant within the meaning of the Orissa Tenants relief Act, 1955 in respect of 19. 85 acres of land situated in Bhat Kuarda village of chatrapur Taluk and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering upon the suit land or in the alternative for recovery of possession of the land. The disputed land originally belonged to the Ankaraboyina family who on 254- 42 executed a sale deed (Ext. 3) in respect of the properties in favour of Chatti venkata Swamy. Venkata Swamy and his brother Narasimhulu installed the plaintiff deity Sri Sita Ramachandra Mahaprabhu in their house on 15-2-48 and on 10-7-48 executed a registered Trust deed (Ext. 5) in favour of the deity inter alia making a gift of Rs. 42,000 to the deity to be utilised for its Seba Puja and other purposes. On 18-2-51 both these brothers executed a registered deed gift (Ext. 4) in favour of the deity in respect of the disputed lands. Venkata Swamy died some time in the year 1956 leaving behind his two sons Krishna Murthy and Balakrushnama. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by Balakrishnama as the trustee of the deity. Plaintiff's case as set down in the plaint is that about six months before the death of Venkata Swamy (i. e. in 1956), the latter had appointed the defendant to manage the suit lands on behalf of the deity and cultivate the same and make over the yield to the deity after deducting there from the expenses of cultivation. Accordingly the defendant cultivated the land in 1956 and paid 18 cart-loads of paddy to Venkata Swamy. Similarly for the year 1957 he delivered 13 cart-loads of paddy to the plaintiff's trustee. The defendants cultivated the land in the year 1958 and in Magh 1959 told the trustee of the plaintiff deity that the Karji of Bhat kumarda was not allowing the paddy to be taken to Berhampur unless the trustee gave an application to the Karji. Plaintiff's trustee went to Bhat Kumarda and signed on a paper written in Oriya which defendant gave him. Being not conversant with the Oriya language he could not know what was written there. The defendant then delivered 11 cart-loads of paddy, being the dues relating to the year 1958. Taking a similar paper signed by the plaintiff's trustee the defendant gave 18 cartloads of paddy to him in 1960 relating to the year 1959 and 12 cart-loads of paddy in the year 1961 relating to the year 1960. Regarding the dues of the year 1961 payable in Magh 1962, the defendant deposited an amount of Rs. 976. 49 in the Court of the O. T. R. Collector, Chatrapur in M. P. No. 17/62. After notice was served on the plaintiff's trustee he filed objection that there had never been any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. The O. T. R. Collector passed an order closing the case and directing that the plaintiff's trustee might start a separata proceeding if he so desired (Ext. 7 ). The plaintiff on enquiry learnt that the three papers on which the defendant obtained the signature of plaintiffs trustee for the years 1959, 1960 and 1981 were receipts in which the defendant was described as a bhag tenant under the plaintiff. It is alleged that these receipts were obtained from the plaintiffs trustee by fraud and misrepresentation and are not binding on the plaintiff. It is asserted that the defendant was never a bhag tenant in respect of the disputed land and that he was only a manager in respect of the disputed lands and liable to be evicted therefrom.

(2.) IN the written statement filed by the defendant he contended that since the time Chatti Venkata Swamy purchased the disputed lands in 1942 he has been cultivating the lands as a tenant under the Chatti family and has been continuing to do so even after the lands were endowed to the deity. He denied the plaint allegation that he was ever appointed to look after the lands as manager of the deity. The plaint allegation that in the years 1959, 1960 and 1961 the defendant obtained the signature of the plaintiff's trustee on certain papers by misrepresentation of the contents thereof was also denied and it was asserted that the plaintiff's trustee had received the Raj bhag for those years and passed those receipts which were scribed under his direction. As the defendant has been regularly paying the rent and is a tenant in respect of the suit land he is not liable to be evicted therefrom. It was further alleged that the suit is bad for non-joinder of all the trustees of the deity. It was lastly contended that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(3.) THE learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Berhampur held following the decision in AIR 1962 SC 547, Magiti Sasamal v. Pandab Bissoi, that he has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parries as to whether the defendant was a tenant in respect of the disputed land. On the merits of the case he held that the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff and that being so, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to order his ejectment from the suit lands. He also held that under the terms of the trust deed (Ext. 5), after the death of Chatti Venkata swamy and his brother Narasimhulu the trustees of the deity were balakrushnama, son of Venkata Swamy and the widow of Narasimhulu. The widow of Narasimhulu being alive and having not joined as a plaintiff in this suit, the suit brought by Balakrushnama alone as the trustee is not maintainable. In the result he passed a decree dismissing the suit with costs. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.