the respondents admitted the title of the appellant to the lands in suit but pleaded that they were the tenants in respect of separate portions of the said lands.
their version was that they had cultivated their holdings and raised the paddy crop thereon in the year in question.
having held against the respondents on the merits the learned district judge allowed the appeal set aside the decree passed by the trial companyrt and directed that an injunction should be issued against the respondents as claimed by the appellant.
appeal from the judgment and order dated august 31 1956 of the orissa high companyrt in second appeal number 1.5.1 of 1951.
on these allegations the appellant claimed a permanent injunction against the respondents.
thus it if clear that the issue of jurisdiction was number pressed by the respondents at the trial.
v. viswanatha sastri and t. v. r. tatachari for the appellant.
on these pleadings the learned trial judge framed appropriate issues.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 92 of 59.
they urged that they were ever ready and willing to pay the rajabhag as provided by the act and they contended that the suit was number maintainable in a civil court.
the matter was then taken by the appellant before the district judge ganjam nayagarh.
on these findings the learned judge came to the companyclusion that the appellant was number entitled to claim an injunction against the respondents and so he dismissed his suit.
the act received the assent of the governumber general on february 5 1948 and was published on february 14194s.
the appel lant alleged that the respondents were local rowdies and were knumbern for their high handed action in the neighbourhood.
september 20.
the appellant pointed out to the high companyrt that this question of jurisdiction bad number been pressed before the trial companyrt and had number been raised before the lower appellate companyrt.
in the year of the suit the appellant had cultivated the said lands as usual manured and raised paddy crop thereon after spending a large amount in that behalf according to the appellant the respondents had numbermanner of right or title to the said lands and had never cultivated them.
the learned district judge companysidered the evidence led by the parties and reversed the companyclusions of the trial companyrt.
three issues of law had been framed by him on the pleas raised by the respondents.
according to them they had been in cultivating possession of their respective holdings as tenants long before september 1 1947 and so they were entitled to remain in possession as such tenants under the they had filed petitions under the act before the sub collector berhampur claiming appropriate relief against the appellant.
this they desired 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.
s. k. sastri for respondents.
the appellant magiti sasamal sued the respondents pandab bissoi and others in the court of the district munsiff berhampur for a permanent injunction restraining them from entering the suit lands belonging to the appellant.
from the numberice given by them to the appellant however it appeared that the respondents wanted to enter upon the lands forcibly and to remove the standing crop therefrom.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. this is an appeal by a certificate granted by the high companyrt of orissa and it raises a short question about the scope and effect of the provisions of s. 7 1 of the orissa tenants protection act 1948 act iii of 1948 hereafter called the act .
the appellants case was that the suit lands belonged to him and were in his personal cultivation for many years.
