URMILA TRIPATHY Vs. CHARULATA KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs, being the Petitioners, have filed this application assailing the Order Dated 08.10.2013 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri in C.S. No. 323 of 2011 rejecting the application filed under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') to stay the further proceedings of the suit till disposal of the Revision Case No. 770 of 2011 pending before the Commissioner Consolidation, Bhubaneswar. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the Petitioners, as Plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration of their right, title, & interest, confirmation of possession & for permanent injunction. The Plaintiffs' claim is that one Ananta Charan Tripathy is the recorded owner of the suit land as per the record of right of 1927, who died in 1952 leaving behind his only daughter namely Fakiri Dei. Niranjan & Bhagaban are the two sons of Maheswar Kar through said Fakiri Dei. Ananta having no male issue, adopted Niranjan & accordingly Niranjan as the adopted son & legal heirs of Ananta, inherited his properties. But during the settlement operation in 1966, Bhagaban, the brother of Niranjan in connivance with Maheswar, his father, managed to record the suit land in their names in exclusion of the name of Niranjan who is the adopted son & successor of Ananta Charan Tripathy. As the dispute arose for the wrong recording between the parties. Maheswar & Bhagaban executed two registered sale deeds bearing No. 1577 & 1576 dated 29.03.1966 in respect of the land recorded in their names in favour of Niranjan to avoid the dispute & disruption between the parties. But during consolidation operation, Niranjan could not take any step & Maheswar & Bhagaban suppressing the aforesaid fact managed to record the suit land in their names although the possession of the suit land was with Niranjan till his death in 2003. After the death of Niranjan in 2003, the Plaintiff -' Petitioners & proforma Defendants inherited the suit property as the legal heirs of late Niranjan & possessed the same in the same manner, but after the death of Niranjan, said Bhagaban in association with his two sons, i.e., present Opp. Parties 2 & 3 created disturbance in the possession of the Plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

(2.) THE Defendant -Opp. Parties by filing written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the Consolidation Authorities being competent to decide right title & interest, & they having hold title in respect of the land in favour of Maheswar & Bhagaban, only legal heir & successor to the interest of Fakiri Dei & the said decision having been arrived at by the competent Authority under Special Act, the same is not open for challenge before the Civil Court after thirty years of final publication of the consolidation R.O.R. Apart from the same the Defendant -Opp. Parties have disclosed the facts of execution of a gift deed by Ananta Charan Tripathy in 1942 in favour of the Defendants. Therefore, it is stated that once the Consolidation Authorities decided the title during consolidation operation, the suit in question should be dismissed.

(3.) LEARNED Trial Court rejected the application for stay of further proceedings of the suit in exercise of power under Section 151 CPC by impugned Order Dated 08.10.2013 stating that the Consolidation Revision being a subsequent proceeding to the suit, Sec. 10 of CPC cannot be attracted to stay the suit & the decision of the suit will be binding in all respect. Apart from the same, it is further held that since there is de -notification under Section 41 of the OCH & PFL Act & during pendency of the consolidation operation, there is no substantial ground to stay the proceeding of the suit till disposal of the revision. Hence, the present Writ Petition.