HARA PRASAD DAS Vs. RAMBALLAV DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of Annexure 3 and 5 and restoration of Annexure 2 which are the orders passed by the appellate authority in Appeal Case No. 36 of 1976, the revisional authority in Consolidation Revision No. 49 of 1977 and the, consolidation office in Objection Case Nos. 371 and 524 of 1972 respectively.

(2.) BALABHADRA had three sons, named, Padmacharan, Radhacharan and Madhab. Madhab was adopted to Gadadhar a stranger to the family. Madhab had no son and, therefore, he adopted Jagmohan, a son of Radhacharan. Petitioners 1, 2 and 3 are the sons of Jagmohan (petitioner No. 7). Petitioner No. 8 is the wife of petitioner No. 7 Opposite parties 1 and 3 are the son's sons of Radhacharan. Opposite parties Nos. 2(a) to 2(f) were substituted in place of original opposite party No. 2, deity Chaitanya Deb represented by Marfatdar Janakiballav Das, son's son of Radhacharan. In O. S. No. 3 of 19.4 for partition in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Puri most of the parties in the writ petition were parties, petitioners 1, 2 and 3 being the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed with the finding, inter alia, that schedule 'A' property of the plaint belonged to Madhab and was inherited by petitioner No. 7, Jagmohan and Ext. C -1 was a deed of family arrangement which was binding on the parties who had executed the same, as well as, their successors -in -interest. The material portion of the judgment is quoted below for easy reference : '...As the sale deed dated 25.11.1950 is a void one and has not been acted upon, the plaintiffs are entitled to have the properties covered thereunder, partitioned. The properties described in schedule 'A' of the plaint except those transferred in favour of defendants 2 to 9 under Ext. C -l, be partitioned allotting 3/5th share to the plaintiffs.' Against the judgment there was an appeal before the District Judge, Puri in Title Appeal No 68 of 1966 in which it was held that the deed of family arrangement Ext. C -l was a fraudulent document. On dismissal of the appeal, Second Appeal No. 268 of 1969 as also a cross appeal were preferred in this Court. The second appeal and the cross appeal were both dismissed and this Court held as follows :

(3.) BEFORE concluding we deem it appropriate to observe that the consolidation authorities should strictly interpret the judgments and decrees of the Civil Courts which have become final inter -parties. They should not interpret them in a manner so as to take away their intended effect. They should remember that concluded judgments and decrees of the Civil Courts inter -parties cannot be questioned by any authority, much less the consolidation authorities.