JUDGMENT A.C. Behera, J. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment. 2. The Appellant of this Second Appeal was the defendant No.1 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I and he was the respondent No.1 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.31 of 1993. The respondents of this Second Appeal were the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 & 4 and defendant Nos.2 & 3 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I and they were the appellant Nos.1, 2, & 3 and respondent Nos.2 & 3 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.31 of 1993. 3. The suit of the plaintiffs (those are the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 in the Second Appeal) against the defendant No.1 (who is the sole appellant in the Second Appeal) was a suit for permanent injunction. 4. The case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court was that, Govinda Upadhaya was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3. The said Govinda Upadhaya had three sons, namely, Banamali, Dasarathi and Ganesh. The plaintiffs belong to the branch of Dasarathi. Dasarathi died leaving behind his son Krutibash. Krutibash died leaving behind his son Jogendra. Jogendra died leaving behind his six children, namely, Haladhar, Bhima, Khetrabasi, Bhairab, Bhramarbar and Golakh. The first and second child of Jogendra, namely, Haladhar and Bhima died without any issue. For which, the branch of Haladhar and Bhima has extinct. The third son of Jogendra, namely, Khetrabasi died leaving behind his wife Padmavati (plaintiff No.3). The fourth and fifth son of Jogendra, namely, Bhairab and Bhramarbara are the plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 respectively. The sixth son of Jogendra i.e. Golakh died leaving behind his son Managobinda i.e. plaintiff No.4. The third son of Govinda i.e. Ganesh died leaving behind his daughter Jema. Jema died leaving behind her daughter Sabitri. Sabitri died leaving behind her two daughters i.e. Indramani and Saraswati (defendant Nos.2 & 3) respectively. 5. In order to have a better appreciation, the aforesaid family pedigree of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3 is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:- 6. The suit land is the 8C9 Schedule land of the plaint i.e. Plot No.2376/2945 Ac.0.16 dec. out of Ac.0.18 dec. under Khata No.89 and Plot No. 2432 Ac.0.02 dec. out of Ac.0.06 dec. In order to have a better appreciation, the aforesaid family pedigree of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3 is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:- 6. The suit land is the 8C9 Schedule land of the plaint i.e. Plot No.2376/2945 Ac.0.16 dec. out of Ac.0.18 dec. under Khata No.89 and Plot No. 2432 Ac.0.02 dec. out of Ac.0.06 dec. under Khata No.768 in Mouza-Panasa under Jajpur police station. In the sabik settlement, the suit properties were recorded jointly in the names of the members of all the three branches of the aforesaid genealogy including Sabitri Dei (mother of defendant Nos.2 & 3). Though the suit properties were recorded jointly, but the members of three branches including Sabitri Dei were possessing the same separately as per their convenience without any metes and bounds partition between them. So, their separate possessions were noted separately in the remarks column of the plots of the sabik R.o.R. according to their possession. In the sabik R.o.R., the status/kisam of the suit properties were as 'AMBA BAGAYAT". In course of time, the mango trees were cut and removed from the suit properties and the suit properties were converted to homestead and bari land. The plaintiff No.1, Bhairab & Sabitri Dei had their residential houses on suit Plot No.2427. The defendant No.1, namely, Krushna Chandra Upadhaya is a stranger to the family of the plaintiffs. Only a Rasta plot has been recorded jointly with the defendant No.19s father, which does not lead to a conclusion that, defendant is a co-sharer of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit plots. As the defendant No.1 is a stranger to the family of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3, for which, he has no right to possess the suit properties jointly with the plaintiffs. Till yet, the defendant No.1 has not been able to enter into the suit properties. His entry into the suit properties shall spoil their family secrecy and prestige. When the defendant No.1 attempted to enter into the suit properties on 14.06.1988, to which, the plaintiff No.1 protested. For which, the defendant No.1 was not able to enter into the suit properties. But, he is searching for an opportunity to enter into the same. His entry into the suit properties shall spoil their family secrecy and prestige. When the defendant No.1 attempted to enter into the suit properties on 14.06.1988, to which, the plaintiff No.1 protested. For which, the defendant No.1 was not able to enter into the suit properties. But, he is searching for an opportunity to enter into the same. So, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I against the defendant No.1 under Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 praying for injuncting the defendant No.1 permanently from entering into the suit properties described in the Schedule 8C9 of the plaint along with other reliefs, to which, they (plaintiffs) are entitled with impletion of defendant Nos.2 & 3 as proforma defendants in that suit. The further case of the plaintiffs was that, the suit properties were under the ex-intermediary estate, but the same were under the possession of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3 jointly. Though the suit properties have been settled in the names of defendant Nos.2 & 3 after abolition of the ex-intermediary system, the said settlement cannot destroy the joint ownership and possession of the plaintiffs with the defendant Nos.2 & 3 on the same. For which, they (plaintiffs) are entitled to get the decree of permanent injunction against the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit properties under Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882, because the suit properties are their undivided dwelling house and the defendant No.1 is a stranger purchaser of the same from their co-sharers i.e. from defendant Nos.2 & 3. 7. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I, the defendant No.1 contested the same by filing his written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint taking his stands therein that, the suit Plot No.2376/2945 under lot No.1 of Schedule 8C9 was the exclusive property of Sabitri Dei (mother of defendant Nos.2 & 3), to which, she was allotted through partition prior to current settlement. The other co-sharers of Sabitri Dei had no title or possession over the suit Plot No.2376/2945. Therefore, there was noting of possession of Sabitri Dei in sabik R.o.R. The suit Plot No.2376/2945 was neither a homestead nor the same was used as an appertinent to the homestead. The other co-sharers of Sabitri Dei had no title or possession over the suit Plot No.2376/2945. Therefore, there was noting of possession of Sabitri Dei in sabik R.o.R. The suit Plot No.2376/2945 was neither a homestead nor the same was used as an appertinent to the homestead. Before the sabik settlement, there was complete partition in the family of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3. Likewise, the suit plot No.2432 was also the exclusive property of Sabitri Dei (mother of defendant Nos.2 & 3) and the same was recorded exclusively in her name in the sabik R.o.R. The members of the other branches of the genealogy have no right, title and interest over the suit properties. The suit plot No.2432 was neither used as homestead nor as an appertinent to homestead at any point of time. As such, both the suit Plots vide Plot Nos.2376/2945 & 2432 were not the undivided homestead of the family of the plaintiffs. After the death of Sabitri Dei, the suit Plot Nos.2376/2945 and 2432 devolved upon the defendant Nos.2 & 3. As such, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 were the owners of suit Plot Nos.2376/2945 and 2432 and they were possessing the same. The said two suit plots were settled in their names after vesting of the same to the State as per the claim case No.11795 of 1963-64 and claim case No.11796 of 1963-64 respectively. As a consequence of such settlement of the suit properties in the name of the defendant Nos.2 & 3, fresh and independent right, title and interest of the suit properties created in favour of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 and after such settlement, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 were paying rents of the same to the Government in their names. The defendant Nos.2 & 3 sold the suit properties to the defendant No.1 by registered sale dated 19.11.1982 for a consideration of Rs.1,100/- and delivered possession of the same to the defendant No.1 and accordingly, since the date of purchase i.e. since 19.11.1982, the defendant No.1 has been possessing the suit properties being the exclusive owner thereof. So, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the decree of permanent injunction against him (defendant No.1) as per Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882. Because, the suit properties were/are not the undivided dwelling house of the plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the decree of permanent injunction against him (defendant No.1) as per Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882. Because, the suit properties were/are not the undivided dwelling house of the plaintiffs. Rather, the suit properties were the properties of the defendant Nos.2 & 3. After purchasing the suit properties from the defendant Nos.2 & 3, he (defendant No.1) has become the owner and he (defendant No.1) has been possessing the same exclusively. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs for injunction is liable to be dismissed against him (defendant No.1). 8. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 4 (four) numbers of issues were framed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I and the said issues are:- ISSUES (i) Is the suit maintainable ? (ii) Is there any cause of action to bring the suit? (iii) Is the plaintiff entitled to get any injunction order against the defendants? (iv) To what reliefs or relief, if any, the parties are entitled to? 9. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief sought for by the plaintiffs against the defendant No.1 in the suit vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I, the plaintiffs examined three (3) witnesses from their side including the plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to 7. But, on the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 examined three (3) witnesses on his behalf including him and defendant No.2 as D.Ws.1 & 2 respectively and proved the documents vide Exts.A to D/20. 10. But, on the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 examined three (3) witnesses on his behalf including him and defendant No.2 as D.Ws.1 & 2 respectively and proved the documents vide Exts.A to D/20. 10. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the Record, the Trial Court answered issue No.3 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants as issue Nos.1 & 2 were not pressed by the parties and as per the findings in issue No.4, the plaintiffs were not entitled for any other reliefs and basing upon the findings and observations made by the Trial Court in issue No.3 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I as per its judgment and decree passed on dated 22.03.1993 and 13.04.1993 respectively on contest against defendant No.1 and exparte against defendant Nos.2 & 3, but without cost assigning the reasons in issue No.3 that, the settlement of the suit properties under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 in favour of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 (vendors of the defendant No.1) cannot enure any benefit to the plaintiffs. So, the suit properties were the properties of the defendant Nos.2 & 3, in which, the plaintiffs had no interest. For which, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief i.e. permanent injunction under Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 against the defendant No.1 in respect of the suit properties, as the defendant No.1 is a lawful purchaser of the suit properties from its owners i.e. from defendant Nos.2 & 3 and he (defendant No.1) has been possessing the same. 11. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I by the Trial Court as per its judgment and decree dated 22.03.1993 and 13.04.1993 respectively, they (plaintiffs) challenged the same by preferring the First Appeal vide T.A. No.31 of 1993 being the appellants against the defendants by arraying them (defendants) as respondents. 12. 12. After hearing from both the sides, the First Appellate Court allowed that First Appeal vide T.A. No.31 of 1993 of the plaintiffs and set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.03.1993 and 13.04.1993 respectively passed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.149 of 1988-I on contest against the defendant No.1 and exparte against defendant Nos.2 & 3 without cost and restrained the defendant No.1 permanently from entering into the plaint 8C9 Schedule properties till the suit lands are allotted in favour of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 in a metes and bounds partition as per its judgment and decree dated 30.04.1996 and 17.06.1996 respectively assigning the reasons that, as the CS Record of Right of the suit properties was published jointly in favour of the predecessor of the plaintiffs and mother of the defendant Nos.2 & 3, for which, the suit properties were the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiffs and mother of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 and the settlement of the suit properties in favour of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 shall enure benefit to all the co-sharers of defendant Nos.2 & 3 including the plaintiffs, but not exclusively to the defendant Nos.2 & 3 and as such, the suit properties are the joint and undivided dwelling house of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3 and as, defendant No.1 being a stranger to their family, he (defendant No.1) has purchased the suit properties from the defendant Nos.2 & 3, for which, he (defendant No.1) is liable to be injuncted permanently from entering into the undivided dwelling house of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3 as per Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882. 13. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30.04.1996 and 17.06.1996 respectively passed by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No.31 of 1993 in reversing the judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit passed by the Trial Court in T.S. No.149 of 1988-I, the defendant No.1 challenged the same by preferring this Second Appeal being the appellant against the plaintiff Nos.1, 2 & 4 and defendant Nos.2 & 3 by arraying them (plaintiff Nos.1, 2, & 4 and defendant Nos.2 & 3) as respondent Nos.1 to 5 respectively. 14. 14. This Second Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law i.e.:- (i) Whether learned lower Appellate Court committed error in not considering admission of the plaintiffs and their witnesses about previous partition? (ii) Whether the lower Appellate Court committed error in not appreciating the fact of separate recording of the land in question under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act indicating previous partition? 15. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellant (defendant No.1) only, as none appeared from the side of the respondents for hearing of the Second Appeal. 16. It is the admitted case of the parties that, the suit properties were under the ex intermediary estates prior to abolition of the ex-intermediary system and after abolition of the ex intermediary system, the suit properties were settled in the name of the two married daughters of Sabitri Dei i.e. in favour of the defendant Nos.2 & 3. The said defendant Nos.2 & 3 have sold the suit properties to the defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dated 19.11.1982 vide Ext.C. The plaintiffs have also specifically stated in paragraph No.6 of their plaint about the settlement of the suit properties in the names of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 after abolition of the zamidari system (ex-intermediary system). The defendant No.1 has also stated specifically in paragraph No.8 of his written statement about the settlement of the suit properties under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 in the names of the defendant Nos.2 & 3. The undisputed documents i.e. certified copies of the order sheets in O.E.A. Case Nos.11795 and 11796 of 1963-64 vide Exts.A & B are going to show that, the suit properties were settled under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 in the name of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 i.e. in the name of Smt. Indramani Mohapatra wife of Balaram Mohapatra of village-Kulana, P.S.-Bhandaripokhari, Dist.-Balasore and Smt. Saraswati Panda wife of Rama Chandra Panda, Village-Nuasasan, P.S.-Simulia, Dist.-Balasore. The Ext.D Series i.e. rent receipts are going to show that, after settlement of the suit properties in the name of defendant Nos.2 & 3 as per Exts.A & B, that defendant Nos.2 & 3 were paying rents of the suit properties to the Government in their names. The Ext.D Series i.e. rent receipts are going to show that, after settlement of the suit properties in the name of defendant Nos.2 & 3 as per Exts.A & B, that defendant Nos.2 & 3 were paying rents of the suit properties to the Government in their names. The aforesaid documents i.e. Exts.A, B & D Series and as well as the pleadings of the parties regarding the settlement of the suit properties in the name of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 after vesting of the same with State on abolition of ex intermediary estates are going to establish that, fresh and independent title was created in respect of the suit properties in favour of the two married daughters of Sabitri Dei i.e. in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3, those are the vendors of defendant No.1. For which, on the basis of such settlement of the suit properties in the name of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act, 1951, as per Exts.A & B, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 were the owners over the suit properties, in which, the plaintiffs had no interest and possession. When the suit properties were settled in favour of two married daughters of Sabitri Dei i.e. in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3, then it will be considered the legal effects of such settlement from the ratio of the following decisions of Hon9ble Courts:- (i) 2004 (II) OLR-528-Choudhury Balaram Dash Vs. The Commissioner, Consolidation, Orissa and Ors.-(Paras 6 to 8)-O.E.A. Act, 1951-Sections 6 & 74Lands in dispute were part of an intermediary estate, which vested with the State Government free from all encumbrances in consonance with the O.E.A. Act. After vesting, the lands have been settled in favour of the petitioner under the O.E.A. Act and R.o.Rs. were prepared in his favour. Order not challenged by the opposite party and the same has attained finality. The order being a valid one, the Consolidation Authorities are bound by the said order. Authorities cannot traverse beyond the order passed by any of the authorities under any of the State laws. (ii) 64 (1987) CLT 189-Muniram Majhi Vrs. Badanaran Majhi and others-(Para 7)-Nature of right accrued to the person of settlement. The order being a valid one, the Consolidation Authorities are bound by the said order. Authorities cannot traverse beyond the order passed by any of the authorities under any of the State laws. (ii) 64 (1987) CLT 189-Muniram Majhi Vrs. Badanaran Majhi and others-(Para 7)-Nature of right accrued to the person of settlement. The land had vested in the Government free from all encumbrances and it was available to be settled by the Government either on the holder of the village office or on him and others depending upon the nature of enjoyment and possession of the land at the time of vesting. But, however, once the land is settled, it conveys a new title, which is not impeded by any right or title to the land, which might have existed prior to the vesting. Such conferment of new title by virtue of the settlement operates proprio vigore to the exclusion of all others. (iii) 2015 (II) Civil Law Times 99 (Karnataka)-Smt. Gowramma (Dead) by LRs. and another Vrs. Rangappa. Female members of the joint family. Absolute ownership- Even if it is presumed that, the joint family by investing its funds has purchased a property in the name of female member of the family, such property becomes absolute property of the female member - other members of the family, have no right to ask such female member to put property into common hotch pot seeking partition in respect of the property between members of the family. 17. When, due to abolition of the ex intermediary system, the suit properties were vested with the State being free from all encumbrances and when after vesting of the suit properties with the State, the suit properties were settled under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 as per the orders passed in O.E.A. Case Nos.11795 & 11796 of 1963-64 vide Exts.A & B in the name of two married daughters of Sabitri Dei i.e. in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 (vendors of the defendant No.1), then as per law, fresh and new title of the suit properties was created in favour of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 by virtue of such settlement, which operates proprio vigore to the exclusion of the claim of all others in the same in view of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions. For which, it cannot at all be held that, the suit properties were/are the joint and undivided properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3. Therefore, in other words, it is held as per law that, by virtue of settlement of the suit properties in the name of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 as per O.E.A. Case Nos.11795 & 11796 of 1963-64 vide Exts.A & B, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 had become the owners over the suit properties to the exclusion of all others including the plaintiffs and they (defendant Nos.1 & 2) were paying rents of the same to the State in their names as per Ext.D Series and the State had accepted them (defendant Nos.2 & 3) as tenants of the suit properties directly under the State admitting their possession in the suit properties after accepting the rents thereof from them (defendant Nos.2 & 3). 18. When, undisputedly, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 have sold the suit properties to the defendant No.1 as per the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dated 19.11.1982 vide Ext.C and when the defendant No.2 as D.W.2 has specifically deposed in her evidence that, by executing and registering the sale deed vide Ext.C in favour of the defendant No.1, they (defendant Nos.2 & 3) have delivered the possession of the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 has been possessing the suit properties as the exclusive owner thereof, then at this juncture, it cannot at all be held that, the plaintiffs have any interest in the suit properties. 19. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it has already been held that, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 were the owners of the suit properties as per the settlement of the same under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 in their names and they (defendant Nos.2 & 3) were in possession over the same, in which, the plaintiffs had no interest, then at this juncture, the findings and observations made by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No.31 of 1993 that, the suit properties were the undivided house and homestead properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 & 3 cannot be sustainable under law. Therefore, it is held that, the defendant No.1 is the exclusive owner of the suit properties by purchasing the same from its lawful owners thereof i.e. from defendant Nos.2 & 3 and he (defendant No.1) has been possessing the suit properties exclusively, for which, the question of passing any injunction under Section 44 of the T.P. Act, 1882 against the defendant No.1 does not arise. So, the decree of permanent injunction passed by the First Appellate Court against the defendant No.1 cannot be sustainable under law. As such, the First Appellate Court has committed errors in not appreciating the facts i.e. separate recording of the suit properties in the name of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 under Sections 6 & 7 of the O.E.A. Act, 1951 and creation of fresh title of the suit properties in favour of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 on the basis of such settlement. When it is held that, the plaintiffs have no interest in the suit properties, then at this juncture, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court cannot be sustainable under law. 20. When the findings and observations made by the First Appellate Court in reversing the judgment and decree of the Trial Court have become unsustainable under law, then at this juncture, there is justification under law for making interference with the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No.31 of 1993 through this Second Appeal filed by the appellant (defendant No.1). As such, there is merit in the Second Appeal of the appellant (defendant No.1). The same must succeed. 21. In the result, the Second Appeal filed by the appellant (defendant No.1) is allowed on merit, but without cost. The judgment and decree dated 30.04.1996 and 17.06.1996 respectively passed by the First Appellate Court in T.A. No.31 of 1993 are set aside. The judgment and decree dated 22.03.1993 and 13.04.1993 respectively passed by the Trial Court in T.S. No.149 of 1988-I are confirmed.