The Consolidation Authorities have the jurisdiction to decide the question of adoption, and their findings on crucial issues do not warrant any interference.

JUDGMENT :

The Appellants, by filing this Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’), have assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC-II, Cuttack in T.A. No.87 of 1998.

By the same, the First Appeal filed by these Appellants (Plaintiffs) under section 96 of the Code, has been dismissed whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Cuttack in T.S. No.90 of 1994 have been confirmed.

These Appellants, as the Plaintiffs, had filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration that the entry of the name of Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.1) in the record of right in the Hal Settlement in respect of the land in Mouza-Sana-Waubari in the year 1983 concerning the properties described in Schedule-B of the plaint as well as the entry of the name of Respondent No.1 (Defendant No.1) in the Consolidation Record of Right appertaining to the properties situated in Mouza-Parbatipur are liable to be deleted. It has been further prayed to set aside the sale deed dated 20.01.1950 executed by Rama Bewa by declaring the same as illegal, inoperative and void. Further prayer had also been made for issuance of permanent injunction against the Respondents (Defendants).

It may be stated here that one Benu Barik, who was the Plaintiff No.2 in the Trial Court having died during pendency of the First Appeal, his legal representatives have come on record and they are now the Appellants 2 and 3.

Appellants 4 and 6 of the present Appeal, who were the Plaintiffs 3 and 5 respectively having died during pendency of this Appeal, their legal representatives too have come on record.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

3. The Plaintiffs have provided the following genealogy in Schedule-A of the plaint:-

It is stated that as per the record of 1931 settlement, the properties described in Schedule-B of the plaint are the ancestral homestad land of the parties and over the same, there stands the joint family dwelling unit of the Plaintiffs and Defendants 7 to 10. It is their case that the said property under Khata No.31 in different plots stood recorded in the name of Bandhu, Ratnakar, Bhramar, Gobinda, Gopal, Hari and Kurup. It is stated that Kurup was a bachelor and died while leaving in jointness with his brother Dinei. The Plaintiffs 1 and 4 could not participate during the settlement operation, which commenced in their area and closed as both were serving as process-servers in Civil Courts when other members of the family were either pardanashin illiterate ladies or innocent and ignorant male members.

It is alleged that Defendant No.1 having no nexus with the members of the family of the Plaintiffs, in connivance with the Settlement Authorities, got his name recorded in the record of right published at the final stage. Said Defendant No.1 neither belongs to branch of Kali nor that of Kantha. The above mischief done by the Defendant No.1 came to the knowledge of the Plaintiffs on 02.12.1993 when they made a thorough search in the Settlement Office as to how it so happened. The Plaintiffs then came to know that Defendant No.1 falsely representing before the Settlement Authorities that Kurup had a son, namely, Radhu, who had married Rama and out of the said wedlock, they had a son, namely, Bhalu and the Defendant No.1 asserted himself to be the son of that Bhalu had got his name recorded in the record as against the landed properties under Schedule-B. It further revealed that Defendant No.1, relying upon one registered sale deed dated 20.01.1950 and placing the same before the Consultation Authorities, has got his name recorded in respect of Schedule-C properties. It is stated that said sale deed purported to have been executed by Rama, the wife of Radhu in favour of Dibakar @ Bhalu and that is a creation when in fact there was no la