JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The Defendants are Appellants before this Court against a confirming judgment. 2. The Respondent filed the suit for partition. The case of the Plaintiff-Respondent is that he and Defendant No. 1 are brothers and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are sons of Defendant No. 1. The suit land is joint family property recorded in the name of the father of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. Defendant No.1 fraudulently obtained a sale deed in favour of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in respect of a portion of the joint family property. When the Plaintiff came to know about the same, he got in cancelled. During consolidation operation, there was an objection Case which was compromised and under the said compromise, Plaintiff got 1/4th share, Defendant No. 1 got 1/2 share and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 got 1/4th share out of the suit property. In objection Case No. 32/10 before the consolidation authorities possession note was made in respect of the suit property according to the share as noted above and agricultural lands were accordingly separated and Chakas were allotted to different parties. The said order was challenged in this Court in a writ application and the same was disposed of directing to maintain the note of possession. The further allegation of the Plaintiff is that though the suit plots were recorded in the consolidation with specific share of the parties, there was no partition by metes and bounds and specific shares had not been allotted. When the Defendants refused to partition the properties by metes bounds, the suit had to be filed. 3. The Defendants filed a joint written statement denying the plaint allegation and their case is that there was partition between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 1 long back and the Plaintiff possessed half share of the land out of which he had sold some to Defendant No. 2 and 3 by a registered sale deed and the matter having been settled in the consolidation operation, there is no fresh cause of action for the Plaintiff to file the suit as he is already in possession of the share allotted to him during consolidation operation. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed five issues and the most important issue is issue No. 4 which relates to partition. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed five issues and the most important issue is issue No. 4 which relates to partition. While answering the said issue, on consideration of the evidence on record the trial Court found that there had not been any partition by metes and bounds and held that the suit lands are to be partitioned between the parties as per the shares noted by the Consolidation Officer in objection Case No. 32/10. The suit was decreed and it was declared that the Plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th. share out of suit land, Defendant No. 1 is entitled to 1/2 share and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to 1/4th share. Further a direction was issued by the trial Court that the possession of the parties in respect of plot Nos. 277 and 287 shall be respected at the time of allotment of shares. The Defendants' challenged the judgment and decree in appeal before the learned First Additional District Judge. Puri and the appeal having been dismissed on similar grounds, the present second appeal has been filed. 5. This Court while admitting the second appeal formulated the following substantial questions of law as enumerated in ground Nos. 2, 4 and 5 of the memorandum of appeal which are quoted below: (2) For that when the cause of action for partition of the joint family properties arose during the consolidation operation and there was a partition between the parties by order of the consolidation-operation, the Learned Forum below ought to have held that the joint family properties are not available for partition after closure of the consolidation operation and in that view of the matter, it should have been held that there was no subsisting cause of action for the Plaintiff to file the suit and the suit should have been dismissed as not maintainable. (4) For that when the Plaintiff himself has admitted that he is in separate possession of his share as has been noted in the Consolidation R.O.R. and his share has been defined in the R.O.R. as per the decision of the Consolidation Authorities in the Objection Case and confirmed by the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the Learned Courts below ought to have held that in view of separate plots and recording of separate possession in respect thereof according to the recorded share, there is no further scope for partition by metes and bounds and ought to have dismissed the case as not maintainable. (5) For that when the Learned Court has directed to give respect to the possession of the parties, as per the R.O.R. at the time of partition, the learned Court below ought to have held that the possession of the parties in respect of the plots recorded during consolidation operation satisfies the share of the Plaintiff and as such there is no need for further partition and in that view of the matter, the suit should have been dismissed. 6. In reference to the substantial questions of law as stated above. Shri Mohapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the suit is not maintainable because there was earlier partition before the consolidation authorities and no cause of action subsisted for filing the present suit. Shri Mohapatra further submitted that the total landed properties of the joint family will be around to 25 decimals and during consolidation operation Plaintiff got 6 decimals of land and he is in possession of said 6 decimals of land. Apart from the said 6 decimals of land under his possession, the Plaintiff may be entitled to 1/4th decimal which cannot be taken out from any other plot causing inconvenience to the parties and accordingly submitted that the Plaintiff may at best be compensated for the said portion. He further submitted that during trial decree proceeding the land that has been allotted to the Plaintiff by the Commissioner comes to near about 9 decimals which the Plaintiff is not entitled to by virtue of the decree and the decree being not executable should be set aside. 7. Shri Sahoo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that there was no partition by metes and bounds during the consolidation operation and only the share of different parties were declared. 7. Shri Sahoo, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that there was no partition by metes and bounds during the consolidation operation and only the share of different parties were declared. Therefore, the suit is maintainable for partition by metes and bounds. Shri Sahoo further submitted that if share are not allotted in terms of the decree, it is open for the Appellants to raise the same objection during final decree proceeding and not before this Court in the present appeal which is against a preliminary decree. 8. The first question that is raised before this Court is whether there was partition between the parties by metes and bounds before the consolidation authorities. From the record it appears that in the consolidation proceeding it was declared that the Plaintiff-Respondent will be entitled to 1/4th share, Defendant No. 1 is entitled to 1/2 share and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to 1/4th share. There was also a direction by the consolidation authorities to note possession of the parties in terms of the share allotted to them respectively. The said order was not given effect to and the matter was carried up to this Court in O.J.C. No. 2827 of 1984. While disposing of the writ application this Court directed that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of the present Respondent in Objection Case No. 32/10 must be given effect to and the right of present Respondent declared therein is not to be tampered with in any manner. The said judgment of the High Court has been marked as Ext.2. In view of the aforesaid judgment, there cannot be any dispute that in the consolidation operation the share of the Plaintiff in the joint family property had been declared. However, there is no evidence on record to show that there was any partition by metes and bounds by allotment of land in terms of the order. Taking said fact into consideration, the trial Court allowed the suit. I. therefore do not find any merit in the first objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. So far as the second point is concerned, the objection raised by Shri Mohapatra can be looked into by the Court during the final decree proceeding which is continuing at present. I. therefore do not find any merit in the first objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. So far as the second point is concerned, the objection raised by Shri Mohapatra can be looked into by the Court during the final decree proceeding which is continuing at present. The Commissioner report in final decree proceeding which was produced before this Court indicates that the Plaintiff has been allotted more than 1/4th share. Since shares have been declared by the Court in the preliminary decree, if any objection is made to the effect that allotments are not in terms of the decree there will be no difficulty for the Court to pass such order in conformity with the preliminary decree. I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed