JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The common decision dated 20th December, 1996 passed by the Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa, Cuttack in Consolidation Revision Case Nos. 1295 to 1304 of 1995 is assailed in all these Writ applications. The facts and points of law being same in all the cases, with consent of learned Counsel for the parties the same were heard together. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the cases which are very much necessary for appreciating the inter se dispute among the contesting parties are enumerated as follows: One late Mana Das was admittedly the original owner of the disputed property. He had left behind two sons, being Kalandi and Bidyadhar. Kalandi had two sons, being Natabar (original Petitioner No. 1) and Sunakar, Petitioner No. 2. Natabar having died, his legal representatives have been substituted in his place as Petitioner Nos. 1(a) to 1(f). Bidyadhar, the other son of Mana, died in the year 1947, leaving behind his widow Usha and daughter Dhobani. Usha died in the year 1952. Dhobani has been arrayed in these Writ applications as a pro forma opposite party, whereas the purchasers of different parcels, out of the disputed lands from Dhobani, have been arrayed as the contesting opposite parties. 3. According to the Petitioners, Usha, the mother of Dhobani, was a pre-Act widow, her husband Bidyadhar having died in the year 1947, and therefore she inherited no property left behind by Bidyadhar and the same reverted back to Bidyadhar's brother Kalandi and the Petitioners have inherited the same as successors of Kalandi. 4. The aforesaid submission is resisted by the contesting opposite parties 4 to 8 on the ground that there was a partition between Kalandi and Bidyadhar and 50% share in the disputed property was allotted in favour of Bidyadhar. Bidyadhar died in the year 1947 and his widow Usha inherited the same as a limited owner. After Usha, Dhobani inherited the disputed property being the only daughter of Bidyadhar and Usha. 5. After 1956, by virtue of amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, Dhobani became the absolute owner of the disputed property left behind by Bidyadhar and she had acquired right of alienation. Dhobani was then a minor and therefore the disputed property was sold by her maternal guardian Narasingha by four sale deeds executed in the years 1953, 1966, 1968 and 1969 respectively in favour of opposite party Nos. Dhobani was then a minor and therefore the disputed property was sold by her maternal guardian Narasingha by four sale deeds executed in the years 1953, 1966, 1968 and 1969 respectively in favour of opposite party Nos. 4 to 8. After the village in which the disputed property situated came within the fold of Consolidation operation, Land Register was prepared recording all the lands left behind by Mana in favour of Petitioner Nos. 1; 2, Usha and Dhobani. Being aggrieved by such recording, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed ten Objection Cases before the Consolidation Officer, Kendrapara with a prayer to delete the names of Usha and Dhobani mainly on the ground that Bidyadhar had died in the year 1947 and Usha being a pre-Act widow had inherited no property left behind by Bidyadhar. Further, Usha having died in the year 1954, i.e. before introduction of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Dhobani, daughter of Bidyadhar and Usha had also acquired no title to the disputed property and therefore the names of Usha and Dhobani were prayed to be deleted from the Land Register. The said claim was resisted by contesting opposite party Nos. 4 to 8 who had purchased different parcels from the disputed property from Dhobani through her maternal uncle guardian by sale deeds which had been duly registered as stated above. According to the contesting opposite parties there was a partition of the joint family property between Kalandi and Bidyadhar during the lifetime of the latter and the entire property left behind by Mana was divided half and half. Thus Bidyadhar had become owner of 50% of the disputed property allotted in his favour and the said property was subsequently inherited by Usha (the widow), and Dhobani, the only daughter, the only two legal heirs of Bidyadhar who became absolute owners after 1956. The said opposite parties therefore prayed to record their names exclusively in respect of the parcels of the disputed property purchased by them through sale deeds duly registered. The Consolidation Officer dismissed all the Objection Cases filed by the Petitioners praying to delete the names of Usha and Dhobani and held that Dhobani had right, title and interest in respect of the disputed property. Being aggrieved, Petitioners 1 and 2 filed Appeals before the Deputy Director. The Consolidation Officer dismissed all the Objection Cases filed by the Petitioners praying to delete the names of Usha and Dhobani and held that Dhobani had right, title and interest in respect of the disputed property. Being aggrieved, Petitioners 1 and 2 filed Appeals before the Deputy Director. The said authority set aside the order impugned before him and remitted the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for de novo disposal. After remand, the Consolidation Officer once again discussed the facts and relying upon the Judgment and decree passed by then Subordinate Judge, Kendrapara in T.S. No. 152 of 1966 held that Dhobani had valid right, title and interest on the disputed land and by virtue of the sale deeds executed by her, opposite parties 4 to 8 had acquired valid title to the disputed property and disallowed the Objection Cases. The said order was again assailed before the Deputy Director in ten Appeal Cases. The Deputy Director came to the conclusion that Usha being a Pre-Act widow did inherit no property and so also her daughter Dhobani, as Usha had died in the year 1952. Thus after death of Bidyadhar, his share in the joint family property reverted back to Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. On the basis of such conclusion the Deputy Director allowed the Appeal Cases. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the Deputy Director, ten Revision Cases were filed before the Commissioner of Consolidation invoking his jurisdiction u/s 36 of the OCH and PFL Act, 1972. The revisional authority by a well-discussed Judgment came to the conclusion that the Consolidation Officer had correctly interpreted the Judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 152 of 1966 and directed to record the disputed lands in favour of the contesting opposite parties who were the Petitioners before the Commissioner. Consequently the revisional authority set aside the appellate Judgment. The said order of the Commissioner is assailed in all these Writ applications. 6. Mr. Biswal, learned Counsel for the L.Rs. of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2, reiterated the stand taken by the Petitioners before the Consolidation authorities. Consequently the revisional authority set aside the appellate Judgment. The said order of the Commissioner is assailed in all these Writ applications. 6. Mr. Biswal, learned Counsel for the L.Rs. of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2, reiterated the stand taken by the Petitioners before the Consolidation authorities. According to him, Bidyadhar having died in the year 1947 in jointness leaving behind no male issue, his share in the property reverted back to his brother Kalandi and the Petitioners being the sons of Kalandi had become absolute owners thereof, but then ignoring the said clear position, Land Register was prepared jointly in the names of Natabar and Sunakar along with Dhobani. On enquiry the Petitioners came to know about the compromise decree passed in T.S. No. 152 of 1966. According to the Petitioners, the said decree was a nullity in the eye of law as Dhobani who had filed the said suit had no locus standi to do so, she having no interest in the disputed lands. It is reiterated that the sale deeds executed by Nrusingha, the maternal uncle-guardian of Dhobani and duly got registered, were void documents and no title passed to the contesting opposite parties through the same. Relying upon the statement said to have been made by Dhobani before the Consolidation Officer, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that Dhobani had admitted to have no knowledge with regard to the Title Suit and, as such, the decree passed was not binding and the Consolidation authorities had power to ignore such collusive and sham decree. It is emphatically submitted that the joint family property was never divided among Bidyadhar and Kalandi and the allegation that there was a mutual partition and 50% of the same was allotted to Bidyadhar is denied. 7. The aforesaid submissions of Mr. Biswal are strongly repudiated by Mr. Dagara, learned Counsel for the contesting opposite parties. He submitted that there was in fact an inter se partition and severance of joint family status much prior to death of Bidyadhar. Consequently Kalandi had become owner of 50% of the property and Bidyadhar 50%. The property allotted to Bidyadhar thus had become his exclusive property and after him his widow Usha had inherited the same. After death of Usha, her daughter Dhobani had become the absolute owner of the property. Usha had expired when Dhobani was quite a minor. Consequently Kalandi had become owner of 50% of the property and Bidyadhar 50%. The property allotted to Bidyadhar thus had become his exclusive property and after him his widow Usha had inherited the same. After death of Usha, her daughter Dhobani had become the absolute owner of the property. Usha had expired when Dhobani was quite a minor. So she was taken care of by her maternal uncle Nrusingha. Nrusingha, as guardian, for the benefit of minor Dhobani, had executed the aforesaid sale deeds in favour of opposite parties 4 to 8 by virtue of which the said opposite parties became the absolute owners of different parcels of land purchased by them. After Dhobani became major she filed the aforesaid T.S. No. 152 of 1966 inter alia praying for declaration of her right, title and interest over the disputed property and to set aside the sale deeds executed by her maternal uncle as her guardian and for eviction of the contesting opposite parties as well as for restoration of her possession over the said property. In that suit, Kalandi, father of Petitioners 1 and 2, was impleaded as Defendant No. 9. From the order-sheets of the records of the said suit, it appears that though notice of the suit had been served upon Kalandi, he preferred not to contest the suit and was therefore set ex parte. During pendency of the said suit on intervention of 'Bhadralogs' a compromise was arrived at between Dhobani and the contesting Defendants to the effect that Dhobani would not put forth any claim in respect of the lands alienated by her maternal uncle Nrusingha. In other words, it was decided by the parties inter se that opposite parties 4 to 8 had acquired valid right title and interest over the lands alienated in their favour by the aforesaid four sale deeds, and accordingly a compromise decree was passed. 8. Mr. Dagara forcefully submitted that the decree in the said suit having not varied or set aside is binding on the Consolidation authorities. Thus the submission that Dhobani had no right, title and interest on the disputed property or that contesting opposite parties 4 to 8 have acquired the same by virtue of the four sale deeds executed in their favour cannot be accepted. In short, according to Mr. Thus the submission that Dhobani had no right, title and interest on the disputed property or that contesting opposite parties 4 to 8 have acquired the same by virtue of the four sale deeds executed in their favour cannot be accepted. In short, according to Mr. Dagara the Consolidation Officer and the Commissioner of Consolidation rightly appreciated the facts and law and arrived at just conclusion which calls for no interference of this Court. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that late Mana Das was the original owner of the property in question. He had left behind two sons, namely, Bidyadhar and Kalandi. The controversy in this case is as to whether there was a partition between Kalandi and Bidyadhar during the lifetime of Bidyadhar and as to whether after death of Bidyadhar in 1947, Usha being a pre-Act widow inherited the disputed property and so also Dhobani after death of Usha. The position of law is no longer res Integra that prior to 1956, a widow had no power to alienate or create any interest in a joint family property in favour of outsiders and that after death of the last male member (co-sharer) the property in question had to revert back to the surviving co-sharer. In the case at hand, admittedly Bidyadhar died in the year 1947. His widow died in the year 1952. The question that needs determination is as to whether Dhobani, daughter of Bidyadhar had acquired any title and whether alienations made by her through her maternal guardian in the years 1953, 1966, 1968 and 1969 were valid and the vendors (opposite parties 4 to 8) had valid title and interest in respect of the lands purchased (acquired). According to the contesting opposite parties there was a prior partition and 50% of the share in the joint family property had been allotted to Bidyadhar. If the said fact is accepted, then there would be no doubt that Dhobani being the only successor of Bidyadhar had acquired valid right and title over the property allotted to her father. Learned Counsel for the L.Rs. of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2, however, forcefully submitted that the properties left behind by late Mana remained joint and were never partitioned. The question as to whether there was a prior partition or not has been well discussed by the Consolidation authorities. Learned Counsel for the L.Rs. of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2, however, forcefully submitted that the properties left behind by late Mana remained joint and were never partitioned. The question as to whether there was a prior partition or not has been well discussed by the Consolidation authorities. In para-4 of the impugned decision, the Commissioner has dealt with the said aspect. After perusing the decision of the revisional authority and the relevant materials available on record this Court finds that Kalandi, the ancestors of the Petitioners, during his life-time had alienated the disputed property by registered sale deeds on 14.1.1953, 8.4.1962, 21.6.1966 and 31.3.1969. A perusal of the recitals of the said sale deeds reveals that Kalandi had admitted that the property alienated comprised of his 50 % share in the joint property. He had delivered possession of the property so alienated to different vendors and by virtue of the said sale deeds, lands were separately recorded in their favour. The said admission of Kalandi is very vital as the sale deeds executed by him were much prior to the date when the disputes cropped up. The admission of Kalandi, the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners, with regard to his 50% share in the joint family property and delivery of possession of the same to different vendors in whose favour he had executed the aforesaid four sale deeds is very much binding on the Petitioners and therefore they cannot wriggle out of the same. 11. Admittedly, Dhobani had filed aforesaid T.S. No. 152 of 1965 praying for a decree to nullify the sale deeds executed by her maternal uncle as her guardian when she was a minor, in favour of the contesting opposite parties coupled with a prayer for declaration of her right, title and interest in respect of the disputed property and for eviction of the contesting opposite parties therefrom. In the said suit Kalandi was impleaded as Defendant No. 9, but in spite of receiving notice of that suit he chose not to contest. According to Mr. Dagara, in fact, Kalandi had no stake over the disputed property which comprised of 50% of share allotted to his brother Bidyadhar. The said 50% share allotted in favour of Bidyadhar had been inherited by Usha and after her Dhobani. Mr. Dagara further submitted that because of aforesaid reason Kalandi did not contest the Title Suit. According to Mr. Dagara, in fact, Kalandi had no stake over the disputed property which comprised of 50% of share allotted to his brother Bidyadhar. The said 50% share allotted in favour of Bidyadhar had been inherited by Usha and after her Dhobani. Mr. Dagara further submitted that because of aforesaid reason Kalandi did not contest the Title Suit. Thus the decree passed in T.S. No. 152 of 1965 was binding upon Kalandi and so also on Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 12. This Court finds force on the aforesaid submission of Mr. Dagara. In fact by his conduct Kalandi was estopped from taking the stand that the decree passed in the aforesaid Title Suit was a nullity or was not acted upon, and the same is the case of the Petitioners after death of Kalandi. Further, the Title Suit having been filed before a competent civil Court and having been decided in accordance with law, cannot be said to be a nullity in the eye of law. Law is well settled that a decree passed by a competent Court cannot be avoided on the ground that it was a nullity. If a party is aggrieved by such decree, it will always be open to him to file an appeal praying to set aside the same, if so advised. Having not done so, the Petitioners cannot take the stand that they are not bound by the decree in the said Title Suit. 13. Considering the matter from any angle, this Court finds that the Commissioner of Consolidation has taken all the facts and provisions of law into consideration and the conclusions arrived at by him are neither perverse nor erroneous. Neither Kalandi, ancestor of the Petitioners, nor the Petitioners themselves had taken any steps all these years to assail the decree passed in the Title Suit. In other words, what they did not do directly, cannot be permitted to do indirectly. When a remedy was available to them, they ought to have availed of the same as it would be impermissible to avoid a decree passed by a competent Civil Court in a proceeding under the Consolidation Act. That apart, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being discretionary in nature, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision of the Commissioner. That apart, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being discretionary in nature, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned decision of the Commissioner. Even otherwise in the scale of equity, the balance tilts substantially in favour of the contesting opposite parties who have purchased the disputed lands between the years 1953 and 1969 by means of sale deeds which were duly registered, have been in possession of the same and their right, title and interest thereon have been decreed by a competent Civil Court. This Court accordingly dismisses all the Writ applications declining to interfere with findings of facts arrived at the statutory authorities. Final Result : Dismissed