The finality of decrees, the evidentiary value of commissioner's reports, and the limitations of consolidation authorities' jurisdiction in challenging civil court decrees.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

Defendant no.1 is the appellant against a confirming judgment.

2. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 instituted the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, recovery of possession in the event he is dispossessed during pendency of the suit and permanent injunction. Case of the plaintiff was that the suit property originally belonged to Kasinath Panda and others. To press the legal necessity, they sold the suit land to the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 26.9.1962 for a valid consideration and thereafter delivered possession. He is in possession of the suit property. When defendant nos.1 and 2 created disturbance in his possession, he instituted O.S. No.194/72 of 64-I through mother guardian in the court of the Munsif, Puri for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed. It was further pleaded that he had purchased Plot No.2262 measuring an area of Ac.25 ½ dec. as per ROR published in the year 1977. The said plot was divided into three plots viz. Plot Nos.2444, Ac.0.02 dec., 2445 Ac.0.06 dec. and 2448 Ac.0.16 dec. in the ROR published in the year 1977. Hal Plot Nos.2445 and 2448 had been wrongly recorded in the name of defendant no.2. Hal Plot No.2444 had been wrongly recorded in favour of defendant no.1. The specific case of the plaintiff was that Hal Plot No.2444 corresponds to Sabik Plot No.2262. Defendant no.1 had no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit plot. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the relief’s mentioned supra.

3. Defendant no.1 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had not taken possession of the suit schedule property. Southern portion of Sabik Plot No.2262 corresponds to Hal Plot Nos.2445 and 2448. His ancestral house stands over Sabik Plot No.2263. Sabik Plot No.2263 corresponds to Hal Plot No.2443. Hal Plot No.2444 is in between Plot Nos.2443 and 2445 and is a part of Sabik Plot No.2263. He is in possession of the same since 1937 openly, peacefully and to the knowledge of the plaintiff and as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. Defendant no.2 filed a written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeal, appellant no.2 died, where after his legal representatives have been substituted.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck nine issues. A survey knowing commissioner was appointed. He measured the land and submitted the report. On an analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that the suit property was sold to the plaintiff by the land owners including defendant no.1 by means of a registered sale deed vide Ext.3. Title Suit No.72 of 1964 filed by the plaintiff through his mother guardian was decreed in terms of the compromise against Kasinath Panda-defendant no.1 and ex parte against present defendant no.1 and others. The suit schedule land was the subject-matter of dispute in the earlier suit. It further held that the defendants had no title or possession over the suit schedule land. Defendant no.1 and Kasinath Panda and others are the sons of Gopinath Panda. There is no allegation that any fraud committed by the plaintiff. The decree is binding on the defendant no.1. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. Plot No.2444 is a part of Sabik Plot No.2262. Held so, it decreed the suit. Unsuccessful defendant no.1 challenged the judgment and decree before the learned District Judge, Puri, which was transferred to the court of the learned Addl. Sub-Judge, Puri and re-numbered as Title Appeal No.10/35 of 89/88. The appeal was eventually dismissed.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in Ground Nos.5 (a), (b) and (c). The same are -

“(a). For that the Commissioner having not prepared any relay map or comparat