JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — The facts and points of law in all these Writ applications being the same, the same were heard together.

2. The dispute is with regard to the properties owned by one Bhagaban Panda, the common ancestor of the contesting par¬ties. Madani was the wife of Bhagaban. They had three daughters being Sakhi, Malati and Tulasi. Bhagaban died way back in the year 1912 and his wife Madani died in the year 1926. Thus in consonance with the Hindu Law, the entire property was inherited by the aforesaid three daughters. Sakhi had one son namely Nabak¬ishore Panda who was originally opposite party No.7 in OJC No.9378/95. He having died his LRs have been substituted in his place. Malati was issueless. Tulasi had one son namely Rama and two daughters namely Rambha and Budhi. Rama had two sons namely Sadam Charan Panda and Bhagaban Panda who are the Writ petition¬ers.

For the sake of brevity and better understanding the geneal¬ogy of the family which is not disputed by the parties is given below :-

Bhagaban Panda (Died in 1912)

= (W) Badani

Sakhi (Died in 1938) Malati (Died in 1998) Tulasi (Died in 1946)

Naba (O.P)

Rama Rambha Budhi

Sudam Bhagaban

(Petr. No.1) (Petr. No.2)

3. After the village in which the disputed properties are situated came under consolidation operation, several Objections Cases were filed. The said Objection Cases were heard and dis¬posed of together by the Consolidation Officer, Simulia in the district of Balasore by a common judgment dated 1.7.1981 (Annex¬ure-1). According to the petitioners after the death of Sakhi in the year 1938 and Tulasi in the year 1946, Malati being the sole surviving daughter inherited the entire property. Thereafter Malati alienated the said property by three registered sale deeds in favour of the Writ petitioners who also happened to be the sons of Rama and grandsons of Tulasi. The original contesting opposite party No.7 Naba was the son of Sakhi. According to Naba after death of Bhagaban his three daughters inherited 1/3rd share each in the property and thus he being entitled to 1/3rd share, Malati had no right to alienate the entire property. Before the Consolidation Officer the plea of Naba was thus confined to his succession as an heir of Bhagaban and nothing more. The Consoli¬dation Officer after discussing the materials in extenso and relying upon Article 43(6) of the Hindu Law came to the conclu¬sion that in accordance with law that existed prior to the year 1956, in the absence of a son, daughters of a Hindu male were to succeed to the property jointly and after the death of any of them the property would pass to the other surviving daughter(s). It was further stipulated that a daughter’s son being not ‘Gotra¬ja Sapinda’ cannot inherit the property when a daughters sur¬vives. Thus the Consolidation Officer held that after the death of Sakhi and Tulasi, Malati became the absolute owners of the Property and Naba, son of Sakhi and grandson of Bhagaban through his daughter, was entitled to 1/3rd share. The Consolidation Officer accepted the sale deeds executed by Malati in favour of the petitioners as valid to the extent of 1/3rd share and ordered to record the lands in accordance with the said sale deeds.

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the Consolidation Officer, several Appeal Cases were filed before the Deputy Direc¬tor of Consolidation, Balasore. All the Appeals were also heard together and disposed by a common judgment, vide Annexure-2. The Deputy Director relying upon one of the sale deeds executed by Malati wherein she had stated that she had only 1/3rd interest in the property observed that she was bound by the said statement and the contrary stand that she was the absolute owner could not be accepted. On the basis of such conclusion the Deputy Director allowed all the appeals and held that Malati, Naba (son of Sakhi), and Rama (son of Tulasi) and his branch had 1/3rd share each. Being aggrieved by the appellate judgment again several Re