JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — All these four Writ applications involve same facts and points of law and, as such, the same were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner seeks to assail the common order dated 10th September, 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack in Revision Case Nos.1453, 2028 and 1416 of 1981 and 1062 of 1982. The said Revision Cases were preferred under Section 36 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The dispute relates to lands situated in village Sukarpada under Salipur P.S. in the district of Cuttack. The petitioner, it is asserted, succeeded before the Consolidation Officer, the original authority, and also before Deputy Director of Consolidation, the appellate authority. The orders of the said authorities were assailed before the Commissioner in Revision Cases. The Commissioner set aside the orders of the lower author¬ities and reversed the findings. 3. The disputes among the petitioner and the contesting opposite parties centres round the claim of adoption of the petitioner by Gajendra. According to the petitioner, without affording any opportunity to him and without in-depth analysis of the materials available on record, the Commissioner in the aforesaid Revision Cases had earlier reversed the orders of the original and appellate authorities and had decided the cases against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the common order passed by the Commissioner in Revision Cases, the petitioner had approached this Court in OJC Nos.17195 to 17198 of 1998. The said Writ applications were allowed by a common judgment dated 16.3.1999. This Court quashed the impugned order of the Commis¬sioner and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudciation. After remand, the Commissioner re-adjudicated the Revision Cases and arrived at the conclusion that as the peti¬tioner is the sister's son of Gajendra, in view of the restriction in Hindu Law against adoption of a sister’s son, the plea ad¬vanced by the petitioner that he had been adopted by Gajendra could not be accepted. On the basis of such conclusion, the Com¬missioner held that Nimai, the petitioner in all these Writ applications,was not the adopted son of Gajendra and accordingly quashed the confirming orders of the authorities below. The said order of the Commissioner after remand as stated earlier is assailed in these four Writ applications. 4. On the basis of such conclusion, the Com¬missioner held that Nimai, the petitioner in all these Writ applications,was not the adopted son of Gajendra and accordingly quashed the confirming orders of the authorities below. The said order of the Commissioner after remand as stated earlier is assailed in these four Writ applications. 4. In order to appreciate the inter se dispute among the parties, it would be prudent to glance through the genealogy of the parties. One Giridhari was admittedly the common ancestor of the par¬ties. He had five sons, namely, Surendra, Gajendra, Upendra, Mahendra and Nagendra; and two daughters, namely, Surjyamani and Chandramani. Surendra, the first son of Giridhari had no issue and he had adopted opposite party Bishnu. Similarly Gajendra had no issue through his first wife Ulluchha. Therefore he had adopted Nimai (petitioner in all these Writ applications), who was son of Surjyamani, Gajendra’s sister. Thereafter Gajendra married one Sulochana for the second time and through Sulochana Gajendra had one son, namely, opposite party Chittaranjan who was given in adoption to Mahendra. After death of Sulochana, Gajendra married opposite party Basanta for the third time. Through Basanta Gajendra had two daughters, namely, opposite party Jayanti and opposite party Damayanti.Said Basanta, Jayanti and Demayanti are the three con¬testing opposite parties in these Writ applications. According to them as Nimai’s adoption was not in accordance with law, they are entitled to the entire share of Gajendra in the disputed proper¬ty. Upendra, the third son of Giridhari, adopted opposite party Kunja Behari who happens to be the son of Chandramani, daughter of Giridhari. Thus, it appears that all the four sons of Giridhari, name¬ly; Surendra, Gajendra, Upendra and Mahendra had adopted Bishnu, Nimai, Kunjna and Chittaranjan, respectively. Out of aforesaid four adoptions in the family, Nimai and Kunja Behari are the sons of sisters of Gajendra and Upendra, namely, Surjyamani and Chan¬dramani. 5. The property of the parties can be broadly divided into two categories; (i) properties endowed in favour of the family Deity-Bhagbat Gosain; and (ii) other properties belonging to the joint family. All the five sons of Giridhari had 1/5th share each in the property endowed to the family Deity which are being enjoyed by their legal heirs. The dispute in the present cases is with regard to the other joint family properties. 6. All the five sons of Giridhari had 1/5th share each in the property endowed to the family Deity which are being enjoyed by their legal heirs. The dispute in the present cases is with regard to the other joint family properties. 6. It appears, in the year 1956 a suit for partition was filed by Basanti and Gouranga, the widow and son of Upendra respectively. In that suit one of the issues was with regard to validity of adoption of Kunja Behari by Upendra. It was asserted that Kunja Behari, being the son of Chandramani who is the sister of Upendra, the adoption of Kunja Behari was alleged to be not valid. But then the trial Court held the adoption of Kunja Behari to be legal, valid and in consonance with the customs and usages prevalent in the family and locality. Challenging the trial Court’s judgment, a First Appeal was preferred before this Court, being F.A. No.122 of 1970. During pendency of the said First Appeal the Mouza/village in question where the disputed property is situated came within the fold of Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act by virtue of a Notification issued by the State Government. Therefore the suit abated in consonance with Section 4 of the said Act. 7. Before the Consolidation Officer, Basanta, the third wife of Gajendra, a contesting opposite party in these Writ applications, filed objection disputing the claim of adoption put forth by Nimai on the ground that Nimai being the son of sister of Gajendra, his adoption was not valid in view of the restric¬tion in Hindu Law. The Commissioner of Consolidation in the impugned order accepted the said plea of Basanta, though the same had been negatived by the lower authorities. Thus the only ques¬tion that needs determination in these Writ applications is as to whether adoption of petitioner Nimai by Gajendra, his maternal uncle, was legally valid. 8. Mr. Parija, learned counsel appearing for the petition¬er, forcefully submitted that the onus with regard to adoption had to be discharged by adducing evidence, both oral and documen¬tary. According to him, for determination of the question of adoption, indepth analysis of the materials produced by the parties had to be made by the Consolidation authorities. Mr. 8. Mr. Parija, learned counsel appearing for the petition¬er, forcefully submitted that the onus with regard to adoption had to be discharged by adducing evidence, both oral and documen¬tary. According to him, for determination of the question of adoption, indepth analysis of the materials produced by the parties had to be made by the Consolidation authorities. Mr. Parija further submitted that though several documents were filed before the Consolidation Commissioner, the same were ignored and even not discussed; presumably because the presiding officer could not have appreciated the documents which are in Oriya script. In support of such contention, Mr. Parija drew attention of this Court to the following documents which, according to him, though filed were not considered by the Commissioner:- (1) the application dated 26.7.1978 filed by opposite parties Basanta, Jayanti and Damayanti seeking partition from Nimai where they had admitted Nimai to be the son of Gajendra; (2) the application filed by the aforesaid contesting oppo¬site parties, the widow and daughters of Gajendra, in Consolida¬tion Case No.169 where they had prayed to record their names along with the name of petitioner Nimai admitting the latter to be the son of Gajendra; (3) a family settlement arrived at between the said contest¬ing opposite parties and petitioner Nimai where also the said contesting opposite parties had admitted Nimai to be the son of Gajendra; and (4) a Will dated 7.5.1959 executed by Gajendra in favour of Nimai where Gajendra had given details of adoption of Nimai. According to Mr. Parija, all the aforesaid documents were of vital importance and non-consideration of the same vitiated the conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner. It was also forcefully submitted that the aforesaid documents were in fact produced before the Commissioner. 9. Mr. S. K. Nayak-2, learned counsel appearing for Basanta, Jayanti and Damayanti, the contesting opposite parties, at the other hand, submitted that the Commissioner had taken into consideration all the documents which were relevant for the pur¬pose. It ws submitted that the contents of the documents relied upon were disputed by the petitioner and therefore the Commis¬sioner rightly did not consider the same, specially in view of the fact that the same were not proved nor exhibited before the authorities below. 10. A perusal of the order of the Commissioner clearly reveals that the Commissioner relying upon the restriction im¬posed in Hindu Law rejected the plea of adoption of Nimai. 10. A perusal of the order of the Commissioner clearly reveals that the Commissioner relying upon the restriction im¬posed in Hindu Law rejected the plea of adoption of Nimai. Ac¬cording to the Commissioner the parties were “KHANDAYAT” by caste. Relying on Gopal Chandra Praharaj’s Oriya dictionary, the Commissioner held that the word “MAHALAYAK” means “KHANDAYAT”. It was further observed that the surname of the parties begin “Swain”, they could not be “CHASA”. They being “SUDRA” by caste, were bound by the restrictions imposed in the Hindu Law. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties pa¬tiently, perused the materials on record meticulously and consid¬ered the submissions diligently. Article 480 of Mulla’s Hindu Law casts restriction on adoption of sister’s son. The orthodox view in Mulla’s Hindu Law that no one can be adopted whose mother in her maiden state the adopter could not have legally married, has gradually been eroded in course of time and Courts have come to the conclusion that the bar contemplated in the Text is sub¬ject to caste, custom and usages. An adoption though prohibited by the rule laid down by Mulla may be valid if recognized by custom. Thus the adoption of a sister’s son though prohibited under Article 480 of the Mulla’s Hindu Law, has been held to be valid, if such custom is prevalent in the family or in the local¬ity. But then, the custom of adopting sister’s son must be estab¬lished by sufficient evidence and all the conditions for estab¬lishing valid custom must be satisfied. The onus cannot be dis¬charged by merely contending that there a custom exists. 12. In the case at hand, as would be apparent, out of four adoptions in the family, two adoptions are of sister’s sons. Out of the said two, adoption of Kunja who is the son of Chandramani and adopted by Upendra is not challenged and has been accepted by the family members which gives sufficient indication of the custom prevalent in the family. The discussions made above thus clearly reveal that disputed questions of fact are involved in these cases which cannot be effectually adjudicated under Writ jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Consolidation, as it appears, has not taken into consideration certain very important documents which point at the crux of the dispute. Even otherwise, the factum of adoption cannot be ipso facto decided by relying on documents only. The Commissioner of Consolidation, as it appears, has not taken into consideration certain very important documents which point at the crux of the dispute. Even otherwise, the factum of adoption cannot be ipso facto decided by relying on documents only. Here is a case where the parties have to estab¬lish the custom and usage by adducing cogent evidence which is not possible to be done before the Commissioner while deciding the Revision Cases. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the cases, and the aforesaid scenario, I feel ends of justice will be better served if the impugned order dated 10th September, 1999 passed by the Consolidation Commissioner in Revision Case Nos.1453, 2028 and 1416 of 1981 and 1062 of 1982 is quashed and the Objection Cases which were the origin of the Revision Cases before the Commis¬sioner are remanded to the Consolidation Officer, Salipur, who after issuing notice to the parties concerned and after giving them opportunity of adducing evidence, both oral and documentary, shall dispose of the cases de novo in accordance with law, and I direct accordingly. The Consolidation Officer shall dispose of the Objection Cases within three months from the date of service of Writ. Until disposal of the cases by the Consolidation Offi¬cer, status quo with regard to the disputed property shall be maintained. The Writ applications are allowed with the observations/direction as above. Applications allowed.