RAJA SRI SAILENDRA NARAYAN BHANJA DEO versus THE STATE OF ORISSA.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 03-02-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
F_~bmary 3 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
RAJA SRI SAILENDRA NARAYAN 
BHANJA DEO 
v. 
THE STATE OF ORISSA. 
[1956] 
[S. R. DAS, C.J., BRAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS, 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR and B. P. SINHA JJ.] 
Estates Abolition-'Estate', Meaning Qf-Estoppel by judgment 
-Test-Respondent, if can rely on grounds not specified in his State· 
ment of Gase-Orissa Estates Abolition Act (Orissa Act I of 1962), ss. 
2 (g), 8(1)-Supreme Court Rules, 0. XIX, r. 4. 
The appellant sued the State of Orissa for a declaration that 
the Orissa Estates Abolition Act of 1951 was in its application to 
the Kanika. Ra.j, of which he wa.s the Raja. a.nd owner, invalid, un· 
constitutional and ultra vires the State Legislature and for an in· 
junction restraining the State of Orissa from taking any action under 
the Act. It was contended, inte>· alia, that no notification under 
s. 3(1) of the Act vesting the Kanika Raj in the State of Orissa 
could issue as the Raj was not an estate as defined by s. 2 (g) of the 
Act. 
The contrary was asserted by the State of Orissa and its fur· 
ther conten.tion was that the appellant was estopped by a compro· 
mise decree between his predecessors-in-title on the one hand and 
the Secretary of State on the other from denying that the Raj was 
an estate as defined by the Act. 
Held, that the Kanika Raj was an estate as defined by the 
Orissa Estates Abolition Act of 1951 and the appellant was estopped 
from denying it by the compromise decree. 
That the real intention of the Act in defining 'estate' as it has 
done in s. 2(g) of the Act, was to include all lands, such as the ap· 
pellant' s, which were e.s a. matter of fact included in the register pre-
pared under the Bengal Land Registration Act of 1876, and in con· 
struing the definition it is wholly unnecessary to consider whether 
such inclusion was valid or proper or in conformity with the mean~ 
~- ~ 
ing of an estate under that Act. 
That a judgment by consent is as effective in creating an estop~ 
pol between the parties as a judgment on contest and the test is who· 
.ther the judgment in the previous case could have been passed with· 
out the determination of the question which is put in issue in the 
subsequent case where the plea of estoppal is raised. 
Held further, that there is no role corresponding to Rule 4 of 
Order XIX of the Supreme Court Rules imposing a similar disability 
on the respondent, and even with regard to the appellant the court 
may in appropriate ca.sas, give him leave to raise a ground not 
specified in the Statement of the Case filed by him. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
73 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
122of1954. 
1956 
Raja Sri Sailendra 
Appeal under section 109(b) read with section Narayan Bhanja 
110, C.P.C. from the judgment and order dated the 
Doo 
28th September 1953 of the Orissa High Court in The stat;~! OriSSP 
O.S. No. 1 of 1953. 
P. R. Das and Bakshi Tek Chand, with M. 
Mohanti and S. P. Varma, for the appellant. 
M. 0. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India. B. 
Mohapatra, Advocate-General of Orissa with S. Mohanti 
and P. G. Gokhale, for the respondent. 
1956. February 3. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
DAS C.J.-This is an appeal from the judgment and 
decree passed on the 28th September, 1953, by a 
Bench of the Orissa High Court in an Original Suit 
which was filed on the 24th November, 1952, in the 
Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack and was 
on the 17th January, 1953, transferred to the High 
Court and marked as Original Suit No. 1 of 1953. 
The suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant claiming 
as the Raja and owner of the Rajgee, known as the 
Kanika Raj, against the State of Orissa, praying for 
a declaration that the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 
1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Abolition Act") 
was, in its application to the Rajgee of Kanika, in-
valid, unconstitutional and ultra vires the State Legis-
"' 
lature and for an injunction restraining the State of 
Orissa from taking any action under the said Act. 
The suit was instituted evidently under an apprehen-
sion that the State of Orissa might issue a notifica-
tion under section 3(1) of the Abolition Act declaring 
that the Rajgee of Kanika had passed to and become 
vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The 
High Court dismissed the suit hut gave a certificate 
of fitness for appeal to this court. Hence the present 
appeal by the plaintiff. 
The plaintiff's contention before us is that no 

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