Civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate title and possession claims despite tenant assertions under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, confirming earlier findings as binding.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the part reversing judgment.

2. The appellants and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 of this 2^nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.100 of 1981.

The respondent Nos.3 & 4 of this 2^nd Appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.100 of 1981.

The respondent No.4 of this 2^nd Appeal was the appellant before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1987.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as the appellants of this 2^nd Appeal were the respondents before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.7 of 1987.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs was a suit for declaration of title and possession.

4. According to the plaintiffs, all the parties to the suit are guided and governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law.

As per the pleadings of the plaintiffs, Khatu Khuntia was their common ancestor. That Khatu Khuntia died leaving behind his one son and one daughter i.e. Gopinath Khuntia and Gelhi Khuntia. Gopinath Khuntia died leaving behind his wife Duli and two sons namely Rama Chandra Khuntia and Krushna Chandra Khuntia. Both the sons of Gopinath Khuntia i.e. Rama Chandra Khuntia & Krushna Chandra Khuntia pre-deceased Duli Khuntia during their respective bachelorhood. Thereafter, Duli Khuntia expired.

The daughter of Khatu Khuntia i.e. Gelhi died leaving behind her son Babu. Babu died leaving behind his son Banamali (defendant No.2).

5. In order to have a better appreciation and so also for the just decision, the aforesaid genealogy of Khatu Khuntia is depicted hereunder:

Ramachandra Krushna Chandra The wife of Gopinath Khuntia i.e. Duli Khuntia was the daughter of late Rama Chandra Barik of village Tirapada. Rama Chandra Barik died leaving behind his son Somnath and daughter Duli. Somnath died leaving behind his one son Bhagaban. Bhaban died leaving behind his two sons namely, Sureswar and Pratap i.e. plaintiff Nos.1 & 2.

The aforesaid genealogy of Ramachandra Barik is depicted hereunder:

Plaintiff Nos.3(a) to 3(e) are the purchasers of the suit properties.

The suit properties were originally belonged to Gopinath Khuntia.

As per the aforesaid genealogy, after the death of Gopinath Khuntia and his two sons, the suit properties devolved upon his wife Duli Khuntia. After the death of Duli Khuntia, the suit properties devolved upon her father Ramachandra Barik. After the death of Ramachandra Barik, the suit properties devolved upon Somanath Barik. After the death of Somanath Barik, the suit properties devolved upon Bhagaban Barik. After the death of Bhagaban Barik, the suit properties devolved upon plaintiff Nos.1 and 2.

Ramachandra Barik was possessing the suit properties described in Schedule “B” of the plaint. While Ramachandra Barik was possessing all the properties left by his daughter Duli Khuntia including the suit properties being the owner thereof, sold some properties thereof to Janardan Gajendra Mohapatra and Debenarayan Gajendra Mohapatra and the properties those were sold to Janardan Gajendra Mohapatra and Debenarayan Gajendra Mohapatra have already been recorded separately in their names.

After the death of Ramachandra Barik, Somanath Barik and Bhagaban Barik, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Sureswar Barik and Pratap Chandra Barik inherited and possessed the same as the owners thereof and the part of their inherited properties sold to Hema Singh and Jagannath Marandi. All the properties (those were inherited by Ramachandra Barik from Duli Barik) have been shown in the schedule “C” of the plaint. Schedule “B” properties are the suit properties, those are the rest properties after their aforesaid sell.

The de