The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove ownership and possession of the land, the applicability of the Orissa Tenancy Act, and the misdirection of the lower appellate court in considering the status of the previous occupants as lessees.

JUDGMENT :

L. Mohapatra, J. - Defendants 1, 2, 4, 4(a), 4(b), 4(c), 4(d), 5(ka), 5(kha), 8, 11 and 13 are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 194 of 1986 and rest of the defendants are the appellants in Second Appeal No. 234 of 1986. Both the appeals have been filed against a reversing judgment.

2. The suit out of which these appeals arise was filed for declaration that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit land and the defendants have no right, title, interest or possession over the same except to realise rent from the plaintiff, for confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from, interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.

3. The respondent No. 1 who is the plaintiff pleaded that the suit schedule property is a residential Gharbari land with a well therein which originally belonged to the recorded tenant Sadhabi Bewa, widow of Ram Swain who was occupying the same as a Darpattadar under Khata No. 898 belonging to the Pattadar, Raghunath Sen and rent was being paid to the said Pattadar. The said Sadhabi Bewa for her legal necessities sold the suit schedule property to Birabar Mohapatra under a registered deed of sale dated 14.1.1925 and put him in possession. After purchasing the land Birabar Mohapatra remained in possession of the property and mutated the land in his name and was paying rent and taxes to the Municipality. After death of Birabara Mohapatra his son Jaikrishna Mohapatra came into possession of the said land and for legal necessities sold the same to the plaintiff under a registered deed of sale dated 26.7.51 and put the plaintiff in possession of the property. The disputed land is adjacent to the homestead of the plaintiff and he started staying in the residential holding standing thereon. After the said residential holding collapsed, the plaintiff only remained in possession of the land. It is further alleged in the plaint that the landlord Pattadar demanded exorbitant and illegal mutation fee to which the plaintiff did not agree whereafter a demand notice was served on him in December, 1952 demanding Khas possession of the disputed property. The plaintiff replied to such Advocate's notice issued by the Pattadar and since the Pattadar started refusing to accept the rent sent by money order, he deposited the same in the Collectorate. It is also alleged in the plaint that defendants 1 to 8 are influential persons of the locality and the plaintiff was asked by them to sell a portion of the same for the use of the defendant No. 1. Since the plaintiff did not agree, the aforesaid defendants prevailed upon the landlord Pattadar Raghunath Sen and got a registered deed of gift executed in their favour as Marfatdars of defendant No. 1 on 22.7.1957 in respect of certain undisputed property and purposefully included the disputed property in the deed showing the same to be under Khas possession of the Pattadar. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the defendants to accept rent from him and after deferring the proposal for some time the defendant No. 8 the de facto Managing Trustee and Sebayat Marfatdar Trustee of the deity accepted the rent on behalf of the deity. When the matter stood thus, the defendant No. 3 again approached the plaintiff for purchasing a portion of the disputed land for use of the deity and when the plaintiff refused, the defendants 2 and 4 to 6 initiated a proceeding u/s 144, Cr.P.C. and obtained an ex parte order on 20.12.58 restraining the plaintiff from going upon the disputed land. In view of the orders passed in the 144 proceeding, the plaintiff had to file the suit claiming the reliefs as aforesaid.

4. Defendants 1 to 7 filed one set of written statement whereas the defendants 9 to 13 filed written statement separately. Before filing of the written statement some of the parties were impleaded on death of some parties and their legal heirs were substituted. However, in the written statement of defendants 1, 2, 3, 4(a), 5(Kha) and 6 the pla