Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 215 (ORI)

Gandharba Barik v. Bira @ Biramani Barik

2022-06-20

D.DASH

body2022
JUDGMENT : The Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’), have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC-II, Cuttack in T.A. No.87 of 1998. By the same, the First Appeal filed by these Appellants (Plaintiffs) under section 96 of the Code, has been dismissed whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Cuttack in T.S. No.90 of 1994 have been confirmed. These Appellants, as the Plaintiffs, had filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the entry of the name of Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.1) in the record of right in the Hal Settlement in respect of the land in Mouza-Sana-Waubari in the year 1983 concerning the properties described in Schedule-B of the plaint as well as the entry of the name of Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.1) in the Consolidation Record of Right appertaining to the properties situated in Mouza-Parbatipur are liable to be deleted. It has been further prayed to set aside the sale deed dated 20.01.1950 executed by Rama Bewa by declaring the same as illegal, inoperative and void. Further prayer had also been made for issuance of permanent injunction against the Respondents (Defendants). It may be stated here that one Benu Barik, who was the Plaintiff No.2 in the Trial Court having died during pendency of the First Appeal, his legal representatives have come on record and they are now the Appellants 2 and 3. Appellants 4 and 6 of the present Appeal, who were the Plaintiffs 3 and 5 respectively having died during pendency of this Appeal, their legal representatives too have come on record. 2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit. 3. The Plaintiffs have provided the following genealogy in Schedule-A of the plaint:- It is stated that as per the record of 1931 settlement, the properties described in Schedule-B of the plaint are the ancestral homestad land of the parties and over the same, there stands the joint family dwelling unit of the Plaintiffs and Defendants 7 to 10. It is their case that the said property under Khata No.31 in different plots stood recorded in the name of Bandhu, Ratnakar, Bhramar, Gobinda, Gopal, Hari and Kurup. It is their case that the said property under Khata No.31 in different plots stood recorded in the name of Bandhu, Ratnakar, Bhramar, Gobinda, Gopal, Hari and Kurup. It is stated that Kurup was a bachelor and died while leaving in jointness with his brother Dinei. The Plaintiffs 1 and 4 could not participate during the settlement operation, which commenced in their area and closed as both were serving as process-servers in Civil Courts when other members of the family were either pardanashin illiterate ladies or innocent and ignorant male members. It is alleged that Defendant No.1 having no nexus with the members of the family of the Plaintiffs, in connivance with the Settlement Authorities, got his name recorded in the record of right published at the final stage. Said Defendant No.1 neither belongs to branch of Kali nor that of Kantha. The above mischief done by the Defendant No.1 came to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs on 02.12.1993 when they made a thorough search in the Settlement Office as to how it so happened. The Plaintiffs then came to know that Defendant No.1 falsely representing before the Settlement Authorities that Kurup had a son, namely, Radhu, who had married Rama and out of the said wedlock, they had a son, namely, Bhalu and the Defendant No.1 asserted himself to be the son of that Bhalu had got his name recorded in the record as against the landed properties under Schedule-B. It further revealed that Defendant No.1, relying upon one registered sale deed dated 20.01.1950 and placing the same before the Consultation Authorities, has got his name recorded in respect of Schedule-C properties. It is stated that said sale deed purported to have been executed by Rama, the wife of Radhu in favour of Dibakar @ Bhalu and that is a creation when in fact there was no lady by name Rama in their family for executing the sale deed in question. Rama is a fictitious name and there was no member as Radhu in the family whom Rama can claim to be her husband as Kurup died issueless. The Defendant No.1 had filed an objection case before the Assistant Consultation Officer praying to record his name in respect of the suit lands better described in Schedule-C of the plaint. Rama is a fictitious name and there was no member as Radhu in the family whom Rama can claim to be her husband as Kurup died issueless. The Defendant No.1 had filed an objection case before the Assistant Consultation Officer praying to record his name in respect of the suit lands better described in Schedule-C of the plaint. It is further stated that the Assistant Consolidation Officer orally pronounced that the matter would be referred to the Consolidation Officer for disposal under section 10(2) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the OCH & PFL Act’). However, the Assistant Consolidation Officer has passed an order in objection case on 23.11.1986 in favour of the Defendants, which is wholly erroneous according to the Plaintiff and without jurisdiction. On 29.06.1984, Krushna Dhruba and Prahallad, the descendants of Bandhu from Kantha’s branch have sold their share over Schedule-B properties to Sukha @ Ratikanta and Dukha @ Dukhishyam by registered sale deed dated 29.06.1984. 4. The Defendant No.1, in his written statement, has disputed the genealogy given by the Plaintiffs in Schedule-A of the plaint. It is stated that Kurup did not die issueless in the year 1935 and his branch was not so extinguished upon his death. Kurup had a son, namely, Radhu and a daughter Sodhari. Radhu had married Rama and out of said wedlock, a daughter, namely, Padi, had been born. Radhu died in the year 1924 prior to the death of Kurup. The genealogy, as per said Defendant No.1, is the following:- It is stated that Kurup, in order to look after the family, permitted Rama to adopt Dibakar @ Bhalu, who happens to be the natural son of Chintei belonging to the branch of Kantha. Rama adopted Bhalu after observing all the formalities as required when Dibakar @ Bhalu was a ten year years old boy. Bhalu was brought up in the family of Kurup and married Chandramani. He had one son, namely, Bira and Defendant No.1 and two daughters, namely, Jay Kumari and Lalita. Kurupa was separated from other members of the family in mess and estate during his lifetime. Some properties are said to have been exclusively recorded in the name of Kurupa in 1931 settlement. Danei had a third son, namely, Hari whose son is the Plaintiff. Hari had a daughter, namely, Rasi. Kurupa was separated from other members of the family in mess and estate during his lifetime. Some properties are said to have been exclusively recorded in the name of Kurupa in 1931 settlement. Danei had a third son, namely, Hari whose son is the Plaintiff. Hari had a daughter, namely, Rasi. Kantha’s two sons are Chintei and Bandhu. Ratikanta, Bhramar and Dibakar @ Bhalu are the three sons of Chintei. That Dibakar @ Bhalu being adopted by Rama, wife of Radhu, he was brought to the branch of Kurupa. It is stated that Kurupa did not die issueless in the year 1935 while living in jointness with his brother Danei and that he was unmarried and died as a bachelor. The Defendant No.1 claims himself to be a member of the family and, therefore, he says that his name has been rightly recorded in the records of the land finally published in the Settlement Operation in the year 1983 in so far as Schedule-B properties are concerned. This recording is said to be with the full knowledge of the Plaintiff. It is his case that the Plaintiffs were knowing about the said entry since the beginning and that they came to know about the same on 21.12.1993 is out and out false explanation for not challenging the record of rights during all these long period. It is next stated that there was never any objection case before the Assistant Consolidation Officer at Camp-Balia wherein prayer had been made to record the name of Defendant No.1 in respect of Schedule-C property and that there was also no contest from the side of the Plaintiffs. 5. Faced with the rival pleadings, the Trial Court, on going through the pleadings as well as the evidence on record, has noted the following factual aspects:- “(a) The three settlement yadast of the year 1982 settlement describes that Kurupa had a son, namely, Radhu and Rama was the wife of Radhu whose son is Bhalu and the Defendant No.1 is the son of that Bhalu; (b) In one of the yadast, Ratnakar, Puna, Manu and Anu are the signatories where also Nepuri, Rama and Chanda have put their LTIs. In other two yadasts, Puna has signed and orders have been passed to record the land in the name of Defendant No.1; (c) The yadasts, as above, were prepared in the year 1968 showing Rama, as the wife of Radhu, Chanda, the wife of Dibakar @ Bhalu were alive and there it is seen therein that they had consented to the status of Bhalu. Apart from this, Manu, Anu from amongst the Plaintiffs and Puna (Defendant No.9) have also accorded their consent in so far as the status of Bhalu as the son of Radhu is concerned.” Banking upon the above factual settings emanating from the documentary evidence, a view has been taken by the Trial Court that the attempt of the Plaintiffs to show that the branch of Kurup stood extinguished has fallen flat Next, it has been said that although the LTIs on the yadast having been attested but all those persons whose LTIs appear on the yadast, namely, Nepuri, Parama and Chanda belong to the family of the Plaintiffs and they are dead and the persons, who have signed on the yadast except Plaintiff No.4 have not come forward to deny that Nepuri, Parama and Chanda had not put their LTIs. So, a view has been taken on evidence that Puna, being one of eldest members of the family, was looking after the settlement operation and he, instead of joining as one of the Plaintiffs, has stood as a proforma Defendnat, and he has also been withheld from the witness box to avoid the confrontation with the yadast records. On evidence, the Trial Court has come to believe that the successors of Danei harassed Rama and compelled her to relinquish her share in their favour for which, while executing sale deed in the year 1950 in favour of Dibakar @ Bhalu, Rama described him as the son of Chintei instead of describing as the adopted son of Radhu. The Trial Court has then said that it being an ancient adoption and the parties being Sudras, the formalities of adoption as per other castes are not so necessary to be proved. In view of all these above discussion, the Trial Court has found Bhalu @ Dibakar to be the adopted son of Rama. Rama having the power of disposition, the sale deed executed by her has been held as not void. In view of all these above discussion, the Trial Court has found Bhalu @ Dibakar to be the adopted son of Rama. Rama having the power of disposition, the sale deed executed by her has been held as not void. Moreso, in view of the adoption and sale of property to Dibakar @ Bhalu, he succeeded to the branch of Kurupa and, therefore, Defendant No.1 being the son of Dibakar @ Bhalu has the claim of title over the suit property. The suit has been held to be barred by limitation and hit by the principles of Res-judicata. The Plaintiffs, therefore, are said to be stopped to challenge such entry of the name of the Defendant No.1 in the settlement as well as the Consolidation Record of Right and, therefore, such entries have been upheld. Having said all these above, the Trial Court dismissed the suit and thereby non-suited the Plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court, on re-analysis of evidence at its level and upon their evaluation and appreciation on each of the above points, in addressing the rival contentions raised before it, has found no merit in the Appeal and confirmed the dismissal of the suit as laid by the Plaintiffs for the reliefs claimed. 6. The Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the first appellate Court could have arrived at a conclusion that Bhalu was the adopted son of Kurupa on the basis of the Yadast and other materials the consolidation proceedings when the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction whatsoever to decide the question as to whether Bhalu was the adopted son of Kurupa and the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities is confined to decide the right, title and interest in land?; and (ii) Whether the conclusion of the first appellate court that the suit should have been filed in time after the settlement and consolidation proceeding is correct when the consolidation authorities did not have any jurisdiction to decide as to whether Bhalu was the adopted son of Kurupa and their jurisdiction was confined to decide right, title and interest in land?” 7. Mr.B.C. Panda, learned counsel for the Appellants, in assailing the findings of the Courts below that Kurupa had a son, namely, Radhu and he was not issueless and Rama is his wife, has placed reliance upon Ext.9, the yadast of Village Parabtipur in saying that the same does not disclose the status of Bhalu as the son of Kurupa and, therefore, the Courts below have unnecessarily given emphasis upon the yadast records Exts.B, C & D in support of the claim of the Defendant No.1 that Bhalu is the son of Radhu and Rama when the documents exhibited through D.W.1, the Amin, who has no personal knowledge about the entries and there also in Ext.B, some scorings are visible and LTIs have not been attested. He further submitted that the evidence of D.W.5, who is none other than Defendant No.1 that there is no other document to show that Radhu is the son of Kurupa has to be taken into account and the Courts below ought to have held that Ext.B, C & D are spurious documents and prepared at the instance of Defendant No.1. He, therefore, submitted that the Courts below ought not to have taken any help from these Exts.B, C & D in support of the claim of Defendant No.1 that Bhalu is the son of Radhu and Rama and that Radhu is the son of Kurupa. In support of the same, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Prahallad Ch. Swain –V-Suka Dei & Others; 69 (1990) CLT 388 wherein it has been held that statement of adoptive father in the yadast settlement does not by itself prove adoption. In addition to that, he contended that Ext.5 & E are the two registered sale deeds said to have been executed by Rama in favour of Bhalu, which clearly disclose that Kurupa and Rama were issueless and Radhu had not predeceased Kurupa whereas Bhalu is not the adopted son of Radhu and Rama and there, the name of the father of Bhalu has been noted as Chintei. He, therefore, contended that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in their proper perspectives and in the absence of any evidence regarding factum of adoption, as claimed by Defendant No.1, basing on the available evidence on record, as discussed above, the findings of the Courts below that Bhalu is the adopted son of Radhu and Rama suffers from the vice of perversity. He further submitted that Rama had no right or competency to alienate the land in question as she is a pre-Act widow and the moment Kurupa died, his rights over the property devolved upon his co-sharers and, therefore, the sale deed in question does not confer any right or title in favour of Defendant No.1 in respect of the land involved therein. It was contended that the findings of the Courts below that the suit is barred by limitation is wholly erroneous as here in the facts and circumstances as those emanate from the pleadings and evidence on record, the limitation cannot be said to have began from the date of entry of the name of Defendant No.1 in the records of right but from the time when such entries came to be known to the Plaintiffs. It was also submitted that the First Appellate Court has erroneously rejected the prayer for adduction of the additional evidence by the Plaintiffs which are the voter list of the year 2008 and certified copy of the order dated 27.06.2007 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Balia in Remand Revision Petition No.1617 of 1994 as those are having direct bearings on the decision on the main issue in refusing to do so, the First Appellate Court has failed to exercise its power when those evidence are not only required to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment but also for serving the substantial cause. He submitted that in the present case, the Consolidation Authorities having not adjudicated upon the issue which are being decided in the suit and most importantly the factum of adoption of Bhalu by Radhu and Rama, the substantial questions of law in so far have to be answered in favour of the Plaintiffs. 8. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents submitted that in view of the position of law as has been settled in case of Jairam Samantray Vrs. 8. Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents submitted that in view of the position of law as has been settled in case of Jairam Samantray Vrs. Baikuntha Samantray, 1991 (I) OLR 29 further reiterated by several other decisions of this Court, it being within the powers of the Consolidation Authorities to decide the question of adoption, the Courts below have rightly held to have no further jurisdiction to rule upon the same in again entering into the arena of adjudicating the issue of adoption of Bhalu by Radhu and Rama. He submitted that the documentary evidence exhibited in the case wherein family members and some among the Plaintiffs have signed and put their LTIs in support of the fact that Krupa’s branch had not come to an end upon the death of Krupa and he had the son, namely, Radhu and daughter Sodari and Radhu was married to Rama. From the wedlock of which Padi was born and then with the evidence that Rama with the consent of Krupa had adopted Bhalu who happens to be the son of Chintei, the status of Bhalu has to be held as such. It was submitted that in view of the evidence on record that Rama after the death of her husband with the consent of her father-in-law had adopted Bhalu, for the long standing recognition of such status of Bhalu, the Courts below at the ultimatum have rightly dismissed the suit. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgements passed by the courts below. I have gone through the plaint, written statement as well as the evidence, both oral and documentary, let in by the parties. The present suit has been instituted by the Appellants as the Plaintiffs on 31.08.1994. 9. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the judgements passed by the courts below. I have gone through the plaint, written statement as well as the evidence, both oral and documentary, let in by the parties. The present suit has been instituted by the Appellants as the Plaintiffs on 31.08.1994. The reliefs claimed in the plaint are the followings:- (a) Let a decree for declaration be passed that the entry of the name of Bira @ Biramani in the Hal Record of Right published in respect of Mauza-Sanaulubarei in the year 1983 pertaining to schedule ‘B’ properties is liable to be deleted; (b) Let it be declared that the entry of name of Bira @ Biramani in the consolidation record of right pertaining to the properties disputed in Mauza-Parbatipur is also erroneous and liable to be deleted; (c) Let the sale deed dated 20.01.1950 said to have been executed by Rama Bewa wife of Radhu pertaining to the properties of the Plaintiffs family is liable to be set aside declaring the same as illegal and void; and (d) Let a decree for permanent injunction be passed restraining the Defendant Bira not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff and Proforma Defendant Nos.9 and 10. 10. The important issues deciding the fate of the suit are found to be the followings:- (i) Whether Dibakar @ Bhalu is the adopted son of Rama Bewa?; (ii) Whether Bhalu @ Dibakar succeeded to the suit property?; (iii) Whether the registered sale deed dated 20.04.1950 is void and cannot be acted upon?; and (iv) Whether the entry of the name of the Defendant No.1, i.e., Bira @ Biramani in the Settlement Record of Right published in the year 1983 with reference to the properties described in schedule ‘B’ of the plaint and the entry of the name of said Defendant No.1 Bira @ Biramani in the consolidation record of right in respect of land of Parbatipur in schedule ‘C’ property are liable to be deleted? 11. The Trial Court on examination of evidence and their evaluation have culled out the following important facets which have impacted the decision in those issues and those are:- (i) the three settlement Yadasts of the year 1982 bearing No.25,71 and 192 reflect that Krupa had a son, namely, Radhu whose wife was Rama. 11. The Trial Court on examination of evidence and their evaluation have culled out the following important facets which have impacted the decision in those issues and those are:- (i) the three settlement Yadasts of the year 1982 bearing No.25,71 and 192 reflect that Krupa had a son, namely, Radhu whose wife was Rama. Bhalu is the son of Radhu and the Defendant No.1 Bira is the son of said Bhalu; (ii) Ratnakar, Puna, Manu and Anu are the signatories of Yadast No.25; the L.T.I. of Nepuri, Rama and Chanda appear in the said Yadast whereas Purna has signed on the Yadast Nos.71 and 192; finally order has been passed for recording of the land in the name of Bira @ Biramani-the Defendant No.1; and (iii) the Yadasts were prepared in the year 1968 which shows Rama to be the wife of Radhu, Chanda to be the wife of Dibakar @ Bhalu as then living and there it appears that they have accepted the status of Bhalu, besides the acceptance as such being made by Manu, Anu, who are the among the Plaintiffs and Puna the Proforma Defendant No.9; In view of all the above, it has been said that the Plaintiffs case that the branch of Kurupa stood extinguished has been shattered. In saying so, the Trial Court has dealt with the comment of the Plaintiffs:- (a) as to non-attestation of those LTIs in the Yadasts, it has taken note of the fact that Nepuri, Parama and Chanda belonging to the family of the Plaintiffs whose LTI appearing in the Yadasts; (b) the person who have signed on the Yadast except Plaintiff No.4 are not coming forward to deny that Nepuri, Parama and Chanda have never put their LTIs; so Puna is one of the eldest members of the family is stated to have been looking after the settlement work and he although is a Proforma Defendant and supporting the Plaintiffs has not been examined, which is stated to have been with the sole purpose of avoiding the confrontation of the Yadast record; Taking an overall view of the evidence, the observation stands:- (I) It is believable that the successors of Danei harassed Rama and compelled her to execute/relinquish her share in their favour for which while executing the sale deed in the year 1950 in favour of Dibakar @ Bhalu, Rama described him as son of Chitei son of Radhu during the execution of the sale deed in favour of Bhalu @ Dibakar which has been taken as the explanation for ignoring the description of the status of Bhalu @ Dibakar in the said sale deed; and (II) It being the ancient adoption as the parties are Sudras, the formalities of adoption as per other castes is not at all necessary and as such are not required to be proved. With all these above, the finding has been that Bhalu @ Dibakar is the adopted son of Rama. Next it has been said that Rama having the power to disposition, the sale deed executed by her is not void and in view of adoption and sale of property to Dibakar @ Bhalu, he succeeded to the branch of Krupa. As Defendant No.1 is the son of Dibakar @ Bhalu, he has title over the suit property. The suit has been held to be barred by limitation and res-judicata and the Plaintiffs have been held estopped to challenge such entries as to the claim of Defendant No.1 in the Settlement as well as Consolidation Record of Right. 12. As Defendant No.1 is the son of Dibakar @ Bhalu, he has title over the suit property. The suit has been held to be barred by limitation and res-judicata and the Plaintiffs have been held estopped to challenge such entries as to the claim of Defendant No.1 in the Settlement as well as Consolidation Record of Right. 12. The First Appellate Court has accepted the findings of the Trial Court, on detail examination and critical analysis of evidence at its level that Bhalu @ Dibakar succeeded to the suit property. It has also affirmed the finding that Rama inherited the property of Kurupa. Kurupa and Dinei were residing separately and the properties had already been partitioned and Kurupa enjoying his property separately on his own right, title and interest. Thus after the death of Kurupa and Radhu, Rama had the interest over the suit property as it was Widow’s estate and thus she had the right of alienation for legal necessity. The sale deed executed in the year 1950 by Rama has been held to be valid. It is further stated that the Consolidation Authorities and the Settlement Authorities have accepted the admission made before them and acting upon the same have issued the record of rights and when they have disposed of the matter on admission saying that Bhalu @ Dibakar is the son of Rama wife of Radhu, which has been admitted by P.W.3 in his evidence that he was looking after the settlement and consolidation proceeding, the filing of the suit after a decade or so is barred by Law of Limitation. 13. In the backdrop of above, as have been held by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, let us proceed to search out the answer to the first substantial question of law. Proceeding with that exercise, when we read both the substantial question of law formulated for being answered in this Appeal, it is seen that in essence those two revolve round the question as to whether the Consolidation Authorities have the jurisdiction to decide the question of adoption which they have held in the given case that Bhalu was the adopted son of Kurupa. 14. But before that it stands as the requirement to be seen whether Rama had the capacity and competence to adopt Bhalu @ Dibakar. 15. In case of V.T.S. Chandrashekhara Mudaliar Vrs. 14. But before that it stands as the requirement to be seen whether Rama had the capacity and competence to adopt Bhalu @ Dibakar. 15. In case of V.T.S. Chandrashekhara Mudaliar Vrs. Kulandaivelu Mudaliar, AIR 1963 SC 185 , it has been held a widow adopts a boy to her husband and that nobody except a widow can make an adoption to her husband. The reason is that Hindu Law recognizes her not merely as an agent of her husband but to use the felicitous Hindu metaphor, as his surviving half. Referring to the decision of Judicial Committee in Balusu Gurulingaswami Vrs. Balusu Ramalakshmamma, ILR 22 Mad. 398, it has been pointed out that if the consent of the husband’s kinsmen has been obtained, the widow’s power to adopt is co-extensive with that of her husband. The decision in case of V.T.S. Chandrashekhara (supra) has been relied upon by the Apex Court in case of Vijayalakshamma and Others Vrs. B.T. Shankar (2001) 4 SCCC 558. While dealing with the issue relating to adoption by one widow without the consent of the other. The adoption amongst Sudras as finds mention in Article-63 of Mulla’s Hindu Law (24th Edition) is a purely secular transaction and no ceremonies are necessary in addition to the giving and taking of the boy in adoption as has been held in case of Sahadeb Naik and Others, Vrs. Lingaraj Balabantrai and Others, AIR 1975 (Orissa) 55. Keeping in view all these above, given case being seen, it appears that here when Rama is stated to have adopted Bhalu @ Dibakar with the consent of her father-in-law Kurupa, in view of the fact that there has been long lapse of time, the witnesses to the ceremony of giving and taking are not available to be examined. Thus, it is permissible to draw an inference of such adoption from the conduct and dealing amongst the parties inter-se as well as with others and taking into account the documentary evidence on record in their proper perspective. Therefore, in the present case with all those features staring at the face in view of the records available, the Consolidation Authorities if having the jurisdiction to the rule upon the same whether have committed any mistake in accepting the status of Dibakar @ Bhalu as the adopted son of Radhu and Rama is the question which stands posed. 16. Therefore, in the present case with all those features staring at the face in view of the records available, the Consolidation Authorities if having the jurisdiction to the rule upon the same whether have committed any mistake in accepting the status of Dibakar @ Bhalu as the adopted son of Radhu and Rama is the question which stands posed. 16. In case of Jairam Samantray (supra) the Division Bench of this Court on an in depth analysis of the matter has answered the question that it is not correct to say that the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the question of adoption, that being a question of status and in going to adjudicate upon the right, title and interest over the property in question, they have all the jurisdiction to decide the question of adoption, if such question arises anciliarily or incidentally. 17. The Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 is meant to provide consolidation of holdings and prevention of fragmentation of lands for overall development of agriculture in the State. It is not a permanent process, but the operation of Consolidation comes to an end either by cancellation of notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Act as provided under Section 5 of the Act or by a notification Under Section 41 of the Act to the effect that the Consolidation operations have been closed in the unit after the publication of the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act, the operation of consolidation passes through various stages. It begins with preparation of map, land register and determination of valuation of share in joint holdings and reaches a finality by confirmation of provisional consolidation scheme under Section 21 and preparation of final map and record of rights on the basis of Consolidation scheme confirmed as provided under section 22 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act in specific terms vests the powers to effect partition of joint holdings with the Assistant Consolidation Officer and the Consolidation Officer. It has been further provided in the said Section that a partition on the basis of specific parcel of land may, on an application in that behalf, be effected by the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer, where all concerned land owners so agree. It has been further provided in the said Section that a partition on the basis of specific parcel of land may, on an application in that behalf, be effected by the Assistant Consolidation Officer or the Consolidation Officer, where all concerned land owners so agree. Where all concerned land owners do not agree, the same can be done by the Consolidation Officer. Cause of action for partition of joint holdings may arise at any time irrespective of the stage of the Consolidation operation. All objections relating to right, title and interest on land can be raised and – disposed of by the consolidation authorities, whereafter the map, land register and other records prepared under Section 6 of the Act shall be revised, if necessary, on the basis of the orders passed disposing of the objection raised. Section 14 of the Act provides that no question in respect of the right, title and interest in the land partition of joint holding valuation of lands, house, structures, tress, wells and other improvements shall be permitted to be raised which could have been raised under section 9 of the Act but has not been raised at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceeding. The only exception to the said prohibition is provided in Section 15 which says that all matters relating to changes and transfers affecting ay of the rights, title and interest recorded in the land register published under Section 13 for which cause of action arose after the publication of records under Section 9 of the Act may be raised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer as and when they arise, but not latter than the date of publication of the order, if any, under Sub-section (1) of Section 5 or the date of confirmation of the scheme under Sub-section (1) of Section 21 whichever is earlier. Thus, the findings returned by the Courts below on the crucial issues as regards the status of Dibakar @ Bhola who happens to be the father of this Defendant No.1 giving due weightage upon the Consolidation and other Authorities are well in order and all those records after at this distance of time do not warrant any interference. 18. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly which in turn lead to confirm the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. 19. 18. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly which in turn lead to confirm the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the Plaintiffs. 19. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.