Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. L. Narasimham, C. J. And R. K. Das, J.
KHETRAMOHAN BARAL - Appellant
Versus
RASANANDA MISRA - Respondent
Second Appeal 72 Of 1960
Decided On : OCTOBER 12, 1961
TENANCY - Occupancy rights - Settlement entry - Presumption of correctness - Rebuttal - Evidence - Sikimi tenants - Status - Jagir - Res judicata - Applicability.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed suits for declaration that they were occupancy raiyats in respect of certain properties. The defendants were the successors in interest of one Ganeswar Mohanty and his co-sharers (hereinafter referred to as the Mahantis) who were recorded as occupancy raiyats (Sthitiban) in respect of all the suit properties. The main issue in these suits was whether the Current settlement entry was incorrect and whether the plaintiffs' status was that of occupancy raiyats whereas the defendants' status was that of mere tenure-holders.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the presumption of correctness attaching to settlement records prepared under the Orissa Tenancy Act cannot be rebutted by other presumptions under the general law, but must be rebutted by proof of facts inconsistent with the Settlement entry. The Court further held that the plaintiffs have not led evidence to show that the current settlement entry is incorrect. The Court also held that the plaintiffs as under-tenants of the Mahantis cannot claim the status of occupancy raiyats. The Court also held that the decision in one of the suits which is not challenged on appeals will not operate as res judicata when the decisions in other suits are challenged before the appellate Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the presumption of correctness attaching to settlement records prepared under the Orissa Tenancy Act can be rebutted by other presumptions under the general law? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have led evidence to show that the current settlement entry is incorrect? 3. Whether the plaintiffs as under-tenants of the Mahantis can claim the status of occupancy raiyats? 4. Whether the decision in one of the suits which is not challenged on appeals will operate as res judicata when the decisions in other suits are challenged before the appellate Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The presumption of correctness attaching to settlement records prepared under the Orissa Tenancy Act cannot be rebutted by other presumptions under the general law, but must be rebutted by proof of facts inconsistent with the Settlement entry. 2. The plaintiffs have not led evidence to show that the current settlement entry is incorrect. 3. The plaintiffs as under-tenants of the Mahantis cannot claim the status of occupancy raiyats. 4. The decision in one of the suits which is not challenged on appeals will not operate as res judicata when the decisions in other suits are challenged before the appellate Court.
Final Decision: The second appeals are allowed, the judgment and decree of the lower court are set aside and the plaintiffs' suits are dismissed with costs throughout. There will however be one set of costs in all these four appeals.
NARASIMHAM, C. J.
( 1 ) THESE four second appeals were heard analogously and will be disposed of in one judgment. They arise out of the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge of Cuttack-Dhenkanal confirming the judgment and decree of the Munsif, Second Court, Cutback, in four suits as described in the chart below : number of suit in the trial court. 1 number of the appeal before the Addl. District judge. Number of Second appeal before the high Court o. S. No. 208/50 o. S. No. 209/50 o. S. No. 210/50 o. S. No. 212/50 t. A. 41/56 t. A. 42/56 t. A. 43/56 t. A. 45/56 s. A 68/1959 s. A. 69/1959 s. A. 70/1959 s. A. 72/1959
( 2 ) IN the trial Court O. S. Nos. 208, 210, 211 and 212 of 1950 were all disposed of by one judgment. Though they were all tried analogously with T. S. No. 209 of 1950, a separate judgment was however delivered in T. S. No. 209 of 1950 by the learned Munsif. Five separate decrees were prepared in respect of all the aforesaid title suits. Five appeals were filed against the judgments and decrees of the learned Munsif and all the five appeals (Title appeals 41 to 45 of 1956) were disposed of by the lower appellate Court by one judgment and five separate appellate decrees were also drawn up. In the High Court also five separate second appeals were preferred by the defendants (Second appeals 68 to 72 of 1959 ). Of these, Second Appeal No. 71 of 1959 was disposed of by a separate judgment today. The remaining four appeals namely Second appeals 68, 69, 70 and 72 of 1959, will all be governed by this judgment.
( 3 ) IN all these four appeals though the plaintiffs are different the defendants are the same. The plaintiffs, by separate suits prayed for a declaration that, they were occupancy raiyats in respect of certain items of properties described in the plaints. The defendants are admittedly the successors in interests of one Ganeswar monanty and his co-sharers (hereinafter referred to as the Mahantis) who were recorded as occupancy raiyats (Sthitiban) in respect of all the suit properties. These properties appertain to Khata No. 169 of the Current Settlement (Ex-U)having an area of 7. 21. 9 acres. In the Current Settlement the Mahanties were shown as Sthitiban Raiyats and the cash rental payable to the superior landlord for the entire Khata was shown as Rs. 25-14-6 (Ext. U ). Plaintiffs in O. S. Nos. 206, 210, 211 and 212 of 1950 were recorded as Sikimi Dhulibhag tenants under the mahantis in respect of small portions of the said Khata in the Current Settlement. The plaintiffs in T. S. No. 209 of 1959 were recorded as Sikimi under the Mahantis in the same Khata but it was further recorded that they were paying cash rent of rs. 0-6-0 (See Ext. 7/a) to the Mahantis.
( 4 ) THE main issue in these suits was the same, namely whether the Current settlement entry was incorrect and whether the plaintiffs' status was that of occupancy raiyats whereas the defendants' status was that of mere tenure-holders.
( 5 ) FOR appreciating the points in issue, it is necessary to describe in some detail the nature Pi the entries made in respect of the same property in the previous settlements. It is admitted that the ancestor of the Mahantis was one Shiva charan Mohanty who was working as a Patwari of the then Zamindar of the mouza. In Bhourian Settlement of 1938-42 (Ext. 4) the property was recorded as "chakaran" of the said Shiv Charan, but the fact that it was in the 'chassi' (cultivation) of the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs was also expressly recorded. In the next Settlement, provincial Settlement of 1898-99 (Ex. U/2) all the plots were recorded in the name of one Srikrishna Mohanty and his status was described as Patwari Jagir Babel. It was also recorded that no rent was paid. The area of the holding was shown as 7. 189 acres. In the Revisional Settlement of 1906-1912 (Ex. U/1) the same property was recorded in Khata No. 230 in the name of one Gani Mohanty, but the area was shown as 7. 189 acre
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
