Consolidation authorities must strictly interpret and uphold the final judgments and decrees of Civil Courts, ensuring that their intended effect is not undermined.

JUDGMENT :

K.P. Mohapatra, J. - 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 :

"...Different parties who are related to each other and had disputes to settle agreed to treat all properties belonging to them to be put into a pool and got them allotted themselves separately. This is what was done in Ext. C-l. I find considerable force in the contention of the respondents that the lower appellate Court was not correct in treating Ext. C-l as a fraudulent transaction. The consideration in giving up 36 acres of land belonging to the defendant No. 1 was not the receipt of the 3 acres of land from Balabhadra's family. It was resolving the disputes relating to adoption of the defendant No 1. To avoid future trouble and buy peace in the family the family arrangement was entered into. It has been given effect to and acted upon. Once it is taken as a family arrangement it must be taken to be binding and the plaintiffs who were subsequently born would not be entitled to dispute the arrangement. Their claim in regard to partition of 'A' schedule property has, therefore, been rightly rejected. ..."

As a consequence of the judgment passed in the second appeal, the property described in schedule 'A' of the plaint excluding the property described in the deed of family arrangement (Ext. C-1) are to be partitioned amongst the family members, of Jagmohan. The disputed plots are C.S. Plot No. 361 with an area of Ac. O. 34 decimals and C. S. Plot No. 363 with an area of Ac. O. 89 decimals in C. S. khata No. 167. The corresponding description of the plots in 1966 settlement operation is plot No. 341 with an area of Ac. O. 32 decimals and plot No. 343 with an area of Ac. O. 90 decimals pertaining to khata No. 131. The corresponding L. R. plot Nos. are 300 and 409 w