A civil court alone has jurisdiction to determine property titles; mutation orders do not establish title and must not replace rightful legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.

2. The respondents in this 2^nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.69/1990 and respondents before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.109/36/6 of 1992-99.

The appellant in this 2nd appeal was the defendant before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.69/1990 and appellant before the learned First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.109/36/6 of 1992-99.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs (respondents in this 2^nd Appeal) against the defendant (appellant in this 2^nd Appeal) vide T.S. No.69/1990 was a suit for declaration of title, in alternative partition.

4. The case of the plaintiffs (respondents in this 2nd Appeal) before the learned Trial Court in their suit vide T.S. No.69/1990 was that, their father was Kangalu Barik. Their father Kangalu Barik expired in the year, 1957 leaving behind his widow Mala Barik and the plaintiffs as his successors.

The properties described in Schedule “A” of the plaint are the suit properties and the said properties were the properties of Kangalu Barik. When Kangalu Barik expired in the year 1957 leaving behind his widow wife Mala Barik and his two daughters i.e. plaintiffs as his successors, then, the suit properties left by Kangalu Barik devolved upon them (widow wife Mala Barik and plaintiffs simultaneously). The mother of the plaintiffs i.e. Mala Barik expired in the year 1962 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her successors. For which, after the death of the father and mother of the plaintiffs, the suit properties devolved upon the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs became the owners of the suit properties and they possessed the same.

In the year 1975, the defendant created disturbances in the possession of the plaintiffs. For which, a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. was started in respect of the “B” schedule suit properties, which is the part of the “A” schedule suit properties. In that 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding, the defendant took a false plea that, he is the adopted son of their father Kangalu Barik. In the said proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the “B” schedule suit properties were attached under Section 146 of the Cr.P.C. and direction was given to the parties to establish their title over the suit properties in the Civil Court.

Subsequent thereto, the defendant applied for mutation of the suit properties to his name by filing a Mutation Case vide Mutation Case No.36 of 1985, in which the plaintiffs filed objection. For which, that Mutation Case filed by the defendant was dropped. Thereafter, again, without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, the defendant filed an another Mutation Case vide Mutation Case No.234/1986 for mutation of the suit properties to his name and the said mutation case was allowed in his favour without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs came to know about the same, then, the plaintiffs filed the suit vide T.S. No.69/1990 against the defendant praying for declaration of their title in alternative partition.

The defendant contested the suit of the plaintiffs by filing his written statement taking his stands therein that, Kangalu Barik and Mala Barik both had adopted him as their son when he (defendant) was 21 days old through a valid giving and taking ceremony and they had brought up him (defendant) as their son and he (defendant) was accepted by all concerned as the adopted son of Kangalu Barik and Mala Barik. After the death of Kangalu Barik, the entire suit properties left by