The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's claim of raiyat rights was dismissed, and the civil court lacked jurisdiction due to the provisions of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.96 and 10.10.1996 respectively passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Berhampur in T.A. No.9/94 (T.A. No. 60/93 GDC) confirming the judgment and decree dated 6.9.93 and 18.9.93 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Aska in T.S. No.13 of 1989.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that originally the suit land belonged to ex-estate of Sanakhemundi. One Laxman Gouda was a raiyat under the Zamindar of Sanakhemundi. The Zamindar granted raiyati patta to him. To press his legal necessity, Laxman Gouda sold 40 bharanas, i.e., about Ac.8.00 of land to Somnath Padhi for a valid consideration by means of a registered sale deed. Somnath Padhi was in possession of the land and used to pay rajbhag to the estate. He became the defaulter of payment of rent for which, the Court of Wards, which was managing the affairs of the estate on behalf of minor Zamindar, filed suits in Rent Court under the Madras Estate Land Act for realization of rent. The same was decreed. Thereafter Somnath Padhi paid rent and obtained receipts. He reclaimed adjoining 0.26 cents of land and as such he was in possession of Ac.8.26 cents of land. Somnath Padhi, for his legal necessity, alienated the land to one Tareni Charan Mishra for a consideration of Rs.1000/- and thereafter delivered possession. Tareni Charan Mishra inducted the plaintiff as a tenant and executed permanent lease on 15.4.1958 in his favour. The plaintiff continued as a permanent lessee and cultivated the land through his father till 1964. Thereafter Tareni Charan Mishra alienated the land to the plaintiff for a valid consideration by means of a registered sale deed dated 31.12.1964 and thereafter delivered possession. While the matter stood thus, the estate of Sanakhemundi vested in the State of Orissa on 1.6.1953. Though the land was recorded as Abadi Jogya Anabadi, but the plaintiff cultivated the same as a raiyat. Three encroachment cases had been initiated against the plaintiff. He appeared before the Tahasildar, Digapahandi and claimed that he is a raiyat. He had also filed number of documents evidencing the payment of rent. Thereafter the Tahasildar sent the entire file to the S.D.O., Berhampur to examine as to whether the encroacher has acquired title by way of adverse possession. No order was passed. After issuance of notice under Sec.80 C.P.C., he instituted the suit seeking declaration that he is a raiyat in respect of the suit land.

3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The defendants denied that the plaintiff was a raiyat. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit plots were recorded as Jhatibana in Abada Jogya Anabadi khata. The same is the exclusive property of the Government. The record of right was published on 28.11.1948 in the name of the Government. The plaintiff has not challenged the same. Since the plaintiff was in unauthorised occupation of the Government land, several encroachment cases were initiated against him. The Tahasildar sent the records to the S.D.O., Berhampur. Thereafter the S.D.O., Berhampur considered the cases and returned the file vide office letter dated 11.10.1988 for fresh enquiry which is pending disposal.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined three witnesses and on his behalf eleven documents had been exhibited. The defendants had examined two witnesses and on their behalf four documents had been exhibited.

5. Learned trial court came to hold that Ext.10 series, rent receipts, are no way connected to the suit land as no khatian number or extent of land had been mentioned in the rent receipts. The plaintiff had not taken any steps to get the land mutated in his name. He could not have paid rent as no record of right was prepare