AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Adami, J.—The contention raised by the learned Vakil in this second appeal is, that the District Judge was wrong in applying the provisions of Section 236 of the Orissa Tenancy Act to the present case, which was one in which the plaintiff as an occupancy raiyat tried to eject the defendants who were shikmi tenants under him from the homestead land which they were occupying under him It is argued that Section 236 cannot apply to the case of an under-tenant and can only apply to a case where a raiyat holds homestead land which is not a part of his occupancy holding. The case, however, is concluded by the finding in the case of Mohim Chandra Dey v. Bai''dya Nath Kapali 29 Ind. Cas. 870 : 21 C.L.J. 8 That decision upholds the finding of the District Judge and, therefore, there is no reason to find that his decision was wrong. The appeal must accordingly be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Das, J.
I agree.