Back
1960 Supreme(Ori) 137
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Mohapatra, Barman, JJ.
JAGANNATH BRAHMACHARI - APPELLANT
Versus
JOGI SAHU AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Second Appeal No. 230 of 1957
Decided On : 03-05-1960
L.K. Dasgupta, for the Appellant; N.C. Mohanty, for the Respondent
The civil court has jurisdiction to determine whether a dispute falls within the purview of the O.T.P. Act or not.
Headnote:
ORISSA TENANTS PROTECTION ACT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - O.T.P. ACT, 1948 - SECTIONS 7, 8 - CIVIL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER A DISPUTE FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE O.T.P. ACT OR NOT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a purchaser of disputed land in an execution sale, filed a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession against the defendants, who claimed occupancy rights in the land. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case due to the Orissa Tenants Protection Act (O.T.P. Act).
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to determine whether the dispute fell within the purview of the O.T.P. Act or not. The court noted that the defendants' main defense was their claim of occupancy rights, not protection under the O.T.P. Act. The court also clarified that the O.T.P. Act was intended to provide temporary protection to certain classes of tenants who did not have permanent rights under the ordinary law, and that it did not apply to disputes involving occupancy rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to determine whether the dispute fell within the purview of the O.T.P. Act or not. 2. Whether the defendants were mere trespassers or occupancy tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The civil court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction, even if it may turn out that it has no jurisdiction over the suit. 2. The O.T.P. Act is intended to provide temporary protection to certain classes of tenants who do not have permanent rights under the ordinary law. It does not apply to disputes involving occupancy rights.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court, and remanded the case for disposal in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :
Mohapatra, J. - This second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 28th October 1957 of Sri K.K. Bose, Subordinate Judge of Puri, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court arising out of a suit brought by the Plaintiff for declaration of title and for confirmation of possession in respect of the disputed land with, an area of 1.85 acres. The Plaintiff also prayed for damages. The suit property originally belonged to Madhab Rath and Binayak Rath. The present Plaintiff having obtained a money decree against Madhab and Binayak purchased the disputed property in execution sale held on 15th March 1943. Eventually the Plaintiff took delivery of possession on 26th May 1943. Again the Plaintiff had to file another Title Suit No. 64 of 1945 against the original owners, that is, Madhab and Binayak, and the present Defendants 1 and 2 for declaration of title and for possession. It is to he noted here, the other Defendants, that if Defendants 3 to 5 in the present suit, are the sons of Defendant No. 2. In the previous suit, the Plaintiff's title was declared and the suit was decreed. The Defendants went up in appeal: but the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the Plaintiff were confirmed. Again the Plaintiff had to take delivery of possession on 16th December, 1950 Ext. 4. It is to be mentioned here, the present Defendant 1 and 2 contested in the previous suit (T.S. No. 64/1945) asserting that they are occupancy tenants in respect of the disputed land. The question regarding their occupancy rights was not determined. The present Defendants 1 and 2 filed a petition under the provisions of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act and 26th May 1951 which was disposed of against the Plaintiff on 3rd June 1952 and the Plaintiff was directed not to interfere with the possession of Defendants 1 and 2. The Plaintiff went up in appeal. The appellate order, however, which was passed by the Collector on 25th August 1952, was to the following effect:
The case under the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, there fore, does not lie. The Appellant should seek redress in the Civil Court.
In pursuance of this order passed by the Collector exercising jurisdiction under the O.T.P. Act, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit.
2. The Defendants have filed joint written statement. As usual, they traversed most of the allegations in the plaint; but the substantial point of contest was the same as they hand put forth in the previous Title Suit No. 6 of 1945, that is, they are the settled raiyats of the village and they had acquired occupancy rights in respect of the disputed land for more than 40 years ago. Indeed, they had also taken up the plea that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in accordance with the provisions of the O.T.P. Act.
3. The parties led evidence in respect of all points of controversy raised in the suit and the trial Court having framed quite a number of issues on a discussion of the entire evidence on record found the issues in favour of the Plaintiff whose suit was decreed, title declared and his possession confirmed. It was further found by the trial Court that the Defendants were mere trespassers and that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The trial Court further ordered that the Defendants should pay a sum of Rs. 185/- as damages accepting the Plaintiff's allegation that the Defendants had cut and removed the paddy grown by the Plaintiff. An appeal was filed by Defendant No. 1 before the lower appellate court who without deciding the merits of the case, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on the simple ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. In his judgment he simply relied upon the well known decision in Pandab Bissoi and Ors. v. Magiti Sasamal 22 C.L.T. 479. It is against the decision that the Plaintiff has come up in second appeal which was first heard by my le
