MAGITI SASAMAL versus PANDAB BISSOI

Citation: [1962] 3 S.C.R. 673 · Decided: 20-09-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.... .. 
' • 
a s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
MAGITI SASAMAL 
v. 
P ANDAB BISSO I 
( B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR 
and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ. ) 
673 
Landlord and Tenant-Relationship in dispute-Civil Court 
-1 urisdiction of-Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1918 (Act III 
of 1948), s. 7(1). 
The appellant filed in the Civil Court a suit for per-
manent injunction restraining the re5pondents from entering 
the lands in suit on the allegation that the lands belonged w 
him and were in his cultivatory possession for many years and 
that the respondents had no right or title to them and had 
never cultivated them. 
The respondents contended that they 
were tenants of portion:i of the said lands and were in cultiva-
ting possession of the same as tenants. The question which 
arose for decision vvas whether having regard to the provisions 
of s. 7(1) of the Orissa Tenants Protection Act, 1948, the Ccvil 
Court had jurisdicti,1n to entertain the suit which involved a 
dispute as to the relationship of landlord and tenant between 
the parties. 
Held, that even on a liberal construction of s. 7(1) of 
the Act it cannot be held that disputes a3: regards the existence 
of the relationship of landlord and tenant fall to be deter-
mined by the Collector under that section. Disputes which are 
entrusted to the Collector under s. 7(1) are the simple disputes 
specified therein in the five categories and do not include a 
serious dispute as to the relationship between the parties as 
landlord and tenant. 
In the present case the suit was theren 
fore within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. 
Secretary of State v. Ma•k & Co. (1940) L.R. 67 I.A. 
222, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDWTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 92 of 59. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
August 31, 1956, of the Orissa High Court in second 
appeal No. 151 of 1951. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and T. V. R. Tatachari 
for the appellant. 
' 
M. 8. K. Sastri, for respondentE. 
1961 
September 20. 
;9Cl 
Magili S'"•"""l 
v. 
Pandab Bissoi 
• 
674 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
1961. September 20. Tho Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
C?AJENDRAGADKAR, J.-This is an appeal by 
a. cort1ficate granted by the Hif!h Court of Orissa 
and it raises a short question about the scopo and 
effect of the provisions of s. i (I) of the Orissa 
Tenants Protection Act, 1948 (Act III of 1948) 
(hereafter called the Act). 
The appellant Magiti 
Sasamal Rued tho respondents Panclab Bissoi and 
others in tho Court of the District MunRiff, Berham-
pur, 
for a permanent 
injunction 
restraining 
them from entering tho suit lands belonging to 
tho appellant. The appellant's case was that the 
suit lands bolon.'lcd to him and were in his pernonal 
cultivation for many years. In the year of the suit 
the appellant had cultivated the said lands as usual, 
manured and raised padd.v crop then·on after 
spending a large amount in that behalf. According 
to the appellant the respondonta had no manner 
of right or title to the said lands and bad never 
cultivatod them. 
From tho notice given by them 
t-0 the appellant, however, it appeared that the 
respondents wanted to enter npon tho lands forcibly 
and to remove the standing crop therefrom. This 
they deaired to do by setting up a false claim that 
they were the tenants of the lands and as such were 
entitled to the protection of the Act. Tho appel-
lant alleged that the respondents were local rowdies 
and were known for their high-handed action in the 
neighbourhood. On these allegations tho appellant 
claimed a permanent injunction a~ainst the res-
pondents. 
Tho respondents admitted tho titlo of the 
appellant to the lands in suit but pleaded that they 
were tho tenanls in respect of separate portions of 
tho said lands. Their version. was that thev had 
cultivated 
their holdings and misccl the paddy 
crop thereon in the year in queHtion. 
According 
to them they had been in cu\tiYatin1r possession 
of thoir respective holdings as tenanta long before 
September 1, 194 7, and so they were entitled to 
remain in possession as such tenants under the 
Act. It was also alleged by tho rospondents that 
' 
...,._ .. 
'I.
' 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
675 
they had filed petitions under the Act before the 
Sub-Collector, Berhampur, claiming appropriate relief 
against the appellant. They urged that they were 
ever ready and ·willing to pay the Rajabhag as pro-
vided by the Act and they contended that the suit 
was not maintain

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.