JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. This is a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code involving a challenge to the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2010 and 18.3.2010 respectively involving R.F.A. No.18/2008 on the file of Additional District Judge, Kendrapara reversing the judgment and decree dated 7.7.2008 and 17.7.2008 respectively involving T.S. No.502/2001 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kendrapara. 2. Plaintiff-Respondent is the appellant and defendant-appellant is the respondent in this Appeal. 3. Short background involving the case is that defendant, Sarat Chandra Senapati is the son of Dhruba Charan Senapati and the cousin sister's son's son of the common ancestor namely, Brundaban. Dhruba Charan Senapati, father of the defendant admitted him in Nahanga L.P. School naming him as his father. Due to poor financial condition of Dhruba Charan Senapati, Gunduchi Behera, the maternal uncle of the defendant brought him from Nahanga to his own Village-Chhanchunia along with his brother-in-law, Dhruba Chanran Senapati and said Dhruba being the father signed the Admission Register involving the defendant. Consequently, all the paternal properties were recorded by Druba in his name in a consolidation proceeding and accordingly Record of Rights has also been published during the Hal Consolidation operation. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant being distantly related to the plaintiff's family used to come to their house and in the meantime Dhruba died. Further the defendant was being seriously neglected by his maternal uncle, Gunduchi Behera. The husband of the plaintiff out of sympathy brought the defendant to his house while he had only five daughters of himself. For the plaintiff's husband having no son used to treat the defendant as his 'Snehaputra". While the matter stood thus, plaintiff's husband got the defendant admitted at Sudarsan High School out of affection describing therein him as his father. School Admission Register was also prepared accordingly. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant in connivance with his maternal uncle, Gunduchi Behera by producing fake School Transfer Certificate issued by Rama Chandi M.E. School falsely describing him as son of Narayan Roul, based on which defendant also got himself admitted at Vinoba M.E. School, Thakurhat in 1975 describing him to be the son of Narayan Roul. Plaintiff claimed that on the basis of such forged School Transfer Certificate in all subsequent educational documents and certificates even including H.S.C. Certificate, the defendant has been falsely described as the son of Narayan Roul. Plaintiff further claimed that the defendant by gaining over the School Teacher managed him recorded as son of Narayan Roul in the Voter List. Plaintiff claimed that since all the subsequent records are based on forged documents, no such record/certificate showing the defendant as the son of Narayan Roul is valid. Plaintiff further disclosed that in the last consolidation operation the Consolidation Authority recorded the name of the defendant in respect of the property left by Narayan Roul and accordingly Parchas were published. Plaintiff filed Consolidation Appeal Nos.132/93, 251/88, 165/90 and 166/90. The Deputy Director decided all these Appeals in favour of the defendant. Further in O.C. Case Nos.3524/97 and 3118/92, the defendant's name has also been recorded as son of Narayan Roul. For finding no relief from any corner, plaintiff filed Consolidation Revision Nos.704/94, 759/2000 and 850/2001, which are subjudiced. For the Deputy Director, Consolidation deciding the Revisions holding that the defendant to be the son of Narayan Roul, plaintiff was constrained to file a suit with the prayer as follows :- "For a declaration that defendant is not the son of her husband, Narayan Roul and herself and for cost." The defendant upon entering appearance filing written statement contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit on suppression of material facts. While challenging the age of the plaintiff mentioned in the plaint, he has also challenged the mention of title of the defendant as Senapati whereas the title of the defendant was Roul and also showing his father to be Dhruba Charan Senapati whereas his father was Narayan Roul. The address statement involving the defendant was also challenged. Defendant contended that narrations involving the defendant are deliberately made to give a different picture to the case at hand and was done with ill-motive. Defendant denied to be anyway connected with Dhruba Charan Senapati or Gunduchi Behera. While denying the averments made in different paragraphs, the defendant admitted the averment made in paragraph-9 regarding initiation of Consolidation Appeal and the decision in the Appeal going in favour of the defendant so also the decision involving the O.C. Case. Defendant denied to be anyway connected with Dhruba Charan Senapati or Gunduchi Behera. While denying the averments made in different paragraphs, the defendant admitted the averment made in paragraph-9 regarding initiation of Consolidation Appeal and the decision in the Appeal going in favour of the defendant so also the decision involving the O.C. Case. Defendant claimed that the Consolidation Authority had the competency to decide the status of a person and he claimed to be the natural born and only son of the plaintiff and her husband, Narayan Roul. The defendant stated that he was admitted in the School by his father, Narayan Roul. In such capacity he also passed H.S.C. Examination. Even Narayan Roul and the plaintiff have got him married and the defendant and his wife were staying in joint family house along with Narayan Roul and the plaintiff as well as five daughters. The defendant has even spent money for the marriage of plaintiff's daughters, who were otherwise his sisters. The defendant even claimed that he being the son of Narayan Roul performed Sudhi Kriya of Narayan Roul after his death and he used to conduct annual Sradha of Narayan Roul every year. After death of Narayan Roul, the defendant got all properties left by his father and other co-sharers in his name along with the name of the plaintiff and five daughters. Defendant also stated that during consolidation operation, the plaintiff contested the cases disowning the status of the defendant but failed in her such attempts. Bringing in several documents the defendant also claimed to have several other documents, all which clearly referred him as the son of Narayan Roul. Consequently, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. The defendant filing amended written statement averred that he was never admitted by Narayan Roul at Rama Chandi M.E. School at any point of time and claimed the entries in the Admission Register of Rama Chandi M.E. School incorporated by way of amendment of the plaint to be false and prepared at the instance of the plaintiff, who always moves with ulterior motive. Defendant has also in the additional written statement pointed out that the Admission Register discloses the date of birth of the student, Sarat Senapati as 4.4.1964 whereas the defendant's date of birth is 2.9.1962. Defendant has also in the additional written statement pointed out that the Admission Register discloses the date of birth of the student, Sarat Senapati as 4.4.1964 whereas the defendant's date of birth is 2.9.1962. Further claiming to be a minor by the time of his admission into Vinoba M.E. School, he objected the claim of the plaintiff on the premises that a minor cannot be in a position to produce false certificate to get admission in Vinoba M.E. School. Defendant firmly claimed that it is only his father Narayan Roul got him admitted in the School. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff might have created false Transfer Certificate in the name of the defendant. The defendant lastly claimed that the decision of the Consolidation Court in R.P.Case Nos.132/93, 251/88, 165/90 and 160/1995 will act as res judicata in the suit and accordingly, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Taking into account the pleadings of the respective parties, the trial court framed the following issues :- "(I) Is the suit maintainable in law ? (II) Is there any cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit ? (III) Is the suit hit under the principle of res judicata ? (IV) Is the suit barred by law of limitation ? (V) Is the defendant not the son of Narayan Roul and the plaintiff-Ganguli Roul ? (VI) To what relief(s) the plaintiff is entitled ?" The plaintiff in order to satisfy her case examined seven witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7. Similarly defendant examined seven witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 7. While the plaintiff exhibiting five documents as Exts.1 to 5, defendant exhibited Exts.A to EE. Hearing rival contentions of the parties and taking into account the materials available on record, the trial court while deciding issue nos.3 & 5, the vital issues in favour of the plaintiff finally decided all issues in favour of the plaintiff and consequently allowed the suit thereby passing a decree declaring that the defendant, Sarat is not the son of Narayan Roul and plaintiff Ganguli Roul. Defendant filed an Appeal, which was registered as R.F.A. No.18/2008. Upon considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Appeal was decreed by judgment and decree dated 22.2.2010 and 18.3.2010 respectively thereby while confirming all other issues reversed issue no.III involving the suit and thus allowed the Appeal on contest. 5. Defendant filed an Appeal, which was registered as R.F.A. No.18/2008. Upon considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Appeal was decreed by judgment and decree dated 22.2.2010 and 18.3.2010 respectively thereby while confirming all other issues reversed issue no.III involving the suit and thus allowed the Appeal on contest. 5. This Second Appeal was entertained by order dated 11.8.2010 on the following ground :- "Whether the Consolidation Authority has the jurisdiction to decide the status of a person ?" This Court here observes that though the appellant attempted to introduce a new question of law by way of Memo dated 27.3.2019 but for there being no dispute of this nature either in the trial court nor in the Appellate Court and in absence of any issue of this nature, this Court is not inclined to admit any such question and thus decide the case only on the basis of question of law being framed, vide order dated 11.8.2010. 6. Looking to the judgment and decree involving both the Courts, this Court finds, the trial court while allowing the suit on all issues including negativing the issue on application of res judicata to the case of plaintiff decreed the suit. The lower appellate court while maintaining the finding in respect of all the issues but however reversing the finding on issue no.III on application of res judicata to the case at hand by the trial court allowed the Appeal thereby dismissing the suit. For the above development, this Court finds, for confirmation of the finding on all other issues, the Appeal stands confined to the decision on issue no.III, which is being reversed by the lower appellate court and thus proceeds accordingly. 7. Looking to the plea of the plaintiff as well as the stand of the defendant involving the Civil Suit, this Court finds, the plaintiff while challenging that the defendant not being the son of Narayan Roul giving stress on some of the developments as narrated in the plaint, the defendant refuted the claim of the plaintiff by not only giving some narrations but also establishing through some material documents. No doubt, the plaintiff has exhibited Exts.1 to 5 to satisfy her case that the defendant was not the son of Narayan Roul more particularly involving the Admission Register of some Schools, similarly defendant apart from giving oral evidence has filed many documents right from Exts.A to EE to establish his claim that he is the son of the plaintiff and her husband, Narayan Roul. The defendant while attempting to justify his claim to be the son of Narayan Roul claimed that the suit is hit by principle of res judicata. In the process, the trial court framed five issues. Out of five issues, issue no.III dealt with as to whether the suit is hit by principle of res judicata ? 8. Issue no.III while dealing with principle of res judicata and issue no.V dealt with if the defendant not the son of Narayan Roul and the plaintiff, Ganguli Roul ? Answering issue no.V along with other issues, such as if the suit is maintainable in law ? if there is any cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit ? and if the suit is barred by law of limitation ? and also to what relief the plaintiff is entitled ? it appears, the trial court answered the issues involving issue No.V held that the defendant is not the son of Narayan Roul and the plaintiff, Ganguli Roul and while deciding issue No.III held that the suit is not hit by the principle of res judicata and consequently, allowed the suit declaring the defendant, Sarat is not the son of Narayan Roul and plaintiff, Ganguli Roul. In Appeal, the Appellate Authority framed the following points for determination :- "(I) Whether the learned court below could not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence on record and proposition of law and wrongly held that the defendant is not the son of the plaintiff and her husband, Narayan Roul ? (II) Whether the learned Court below wrongly held that the suit was filed within the period of limitation ? (III) Whether the learned Court below wrongly held that the decisions of the consolidation court never operated res judicata in the suit ? (IV) Whether the learned Court below could not appreciate the proposition of law as cited by the defendant ? (III) Whether the learned Court below wrongly held that the decisions of the consolidation court never operated res judicata in the suit ? (IV) Whether the learned Court below could not appreciate the proposition of law as cited by the defendant ? (V) Whether the judgment and decree are otherwise bad in law, illegal and against the weightage of evidence on record and proposition of law and as such, the same needed be set aside ?" Issue No.III particularly dealing with the question as to whether the trial court wrongly held that the decision of the Consolidation Court never operated res judicata in the suit ?, the Appellate Authority came to observe that the suit is barred by principle of res judicata and thereby differed from the view of the trial court. Consequently, answering issue nos.IV & V the Appellate Authority for its finding on issue no.III ultimately held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Taking such decision, the lower appellate court decided the issue no.I in conformity with the decision of the trial court. It is at this stage, this Court finds, the lower appellate court has confirmed the finding of the trial court on other issues except the issue dealing with application of res judicata. This Court here observes, the issue on res judicata goes to the root of the case and touches the survival of the suit to decide all other issues more importantly issue no.V. This Court, therefore, proceeds to deal with issue no.III of the appellate court as well as issue no.III framed by the trial court, which stand same. This Court finds, the trial court after taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties and all the materials placed has come to observe that the Consolidation Authority is not competent to decide any dispute relating to status of any person and therefore, the principle of res judicata will not operate in the suit. The lower appellate court coming to decide issue no.III, from the discussions therein, taking into account the contest of the parties and certain decisions in paragraph-15 came to hold that the position of law is well settled through the decision of this Court as well as the Hon'ble apex Court and other High Courts that the Consolidation Authority can declare the status of a person relating to land of any legal character. Further law is also settled that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit on such issue only after closure of consolidation proceeding but restricted to the following grounds :- (1) Course of action accruing after the closure of consolidation operation. (2) If the authorities under the OCH & PFL Act had not acted in conformity with fundamental judicial procedure. (3) If the order is obtained by practicing fraud." 9. It is on the premises that the parties are still in litigating terms and the suit has been filed before the forums exhausted, the appellate court was of the view that the suit was hit by res judicata. It is considering the decisions taken note by the lower appellate court and the points under which the Civil Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit after closure of consolidation proceeding, as indicated herein above, this Court looking to the facts scenario available in the case finds, there is no denial by the parties that the Revision involving the parties is already over with a denial to the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant was not the son of Narayan Roul. This Court finds, not only there exists no ground to entertain a suit as explained in the end of paragraph-6 herein above but it is also observed that the lower appellate court is justified in deciding the issue No.III in favour of the defendant and thereby reversing the judgment of the trial court. The view of the lower appellate court is well supported by the settled position of law that the Consolidation Authority has the power to decide the status of the parties. This Court is in conformity with the view of the Appellate Court and as such, finds no scope for interfering in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. 10. In the result, the Second Appeal fails on contest for appellants' failing to satisfy the question framed in entertaining the Second Appeal and in the circumstances without cost.