The Gounti-raiyati lands in the former State of Bamra were not the personal property of the Gountia, but he was in charge of those lands by virtue of or as incidental to his office and according to the provisions of Section 3 (g) of the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1963, he ceases to have the right to hold those lands.

P. K. MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) THE second appeal is by defendants 1 and 2 against a decree of reversal. The suit was for partition of the plaintiff's half share in the raiyati lands described in Schedule A-1 and the Gounti-raiyati lands described in Schedule A-2 of the plaint. Both the items of the suit lands arc situate at village Kusumpal in the former State of Bamra which merged with Orissa and became a part of the district of Sambalpur on January 1, 1948.

( 2 ) THE substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Gounti-raiyati lands in the former State of Bamra are the personal property of the Gountia or he ceases to have the right to hold the same on abolition of the village offices.

( 3 ) IN the case of State of Orissa v. Prafulla Kumar Pradhan: ILR 1980 (1) Cuttack 547, a Division Bench of this Court held that the incidence of the tenancy of Gounti-raiyati land is the same as that of the raiyati land and that such lands are the raiyati lands of the Gountia and would continue to remain his property even after he ceases to hold that office. When the present appeal came up before one of us (P. K. Mohanti, J.) correctness of that decision was challenged. The appeal was, therefore, referred to a larger Bench for disposal. That is how the entire appeal has been placed before us for disposal.

( 4 ) WE may now briefly refer to the facts which are relevant for decision of this appeal. Indra Sahu had two sons, viz. , Samantra and Sahadev. The plaintiff is the son of Sahadev. Baibar, Natabar and Dibakar are the sons of Samantra. Baibar and Natabar are dead. Defendants 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of Baibar. Defendants 6, 8 and 9 are the legal heirs of Natabar. Dibakar is defendant No. 7 in the suit Bidyadhar, the original plaintiff having died on 3-11-1974 his legal heirs have been substituted. Kairi, the widow of Natabar was impleaded as defendant No.

( 5 ) SHE died during the pendency of the suit and her name was expunged from the record. Samantra and Sahadev, the two sons of Indra Sahu constituted a Hindu Mitakshara joint family with the former as the Karta. The family had ancestral roperties at mouza Aunii and out of the income of those properties gountiship of village Kusumpal was acquired with Bhogra and Gounti-raiyati lands. After the death of Samantra and Sahadev, the name of Baibar, who was the seniormost member of the family, was recorded in respect of the suit lands. Subsequently, in 1959-60 there was a partition of the properties situated at village Aunli. But the suit lands were kept joint. In 1974, the plaintiff demanded partition, but the defendants turned a deaf ear to the same. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for partition of his half share. 5. Defendants 1 and 2 who are the sons of Baibar filed written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit lands were the self-acquired properties of their father and are not liable for partition; that the suit was barred by limitation; and that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of the lands in Schedule A-2 as those were being dealt with under Section 6 of the Orissa Merged Territories (Village Offices Abolition) Act, 1962 (Orissa Act 10 of 1963 ).

( 6 ) THE trial court came to hold that the suit lands are the joint family property of the parties and that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. But it dismissed the suit as barred by limitation being hit by Article 127 of the Limitation Act. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the suit lands are the joint family property of the parties and that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, but differed on the question of limitation. Accordingly, it passed a preliminary decree for partition of the plaintiff's half share in both the items of suit lands. Both the courts below relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court cited above took the view that the Gountiraiyati lands do not cease to be the proper