Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 521

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C. BEHERA, J.
Sanatan Nandi (Dead) and Others – Appellants
Versus
Hara Bewa (Dead) and Others – Respondents
S.A. No. 104 of 1987
Decided On : 23-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : D.P. Mohanty
For the Respondent: S. Mishra

The finalized Record of Rights (RoR) by consolidation authorities is binding, and civil courts cannot alter these determinations once established, reinforcing the plaintiff's title and possession.

Headnote:(A) OCH and PFL Act, 1972 - Section 4(4) - Suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction - Plaintiff claimed ownership over the suit properties based on genealogy and a sale deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, while the appellate court reversed the decision based on evidence that the plaintiff had valid title and was in possession. (Paras 4, 10, 12, 18, 24)

(B) Consolidation Operations - Determination of right, title, and interest during consolidation proceedings - The final publication of the RoR in the name of the plaintiff was accepted, affirming her possession and title. Civil courts cannot vary the entries made by consolidation authorities once finalized. (Paras 17, 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The dispute involves the title and possession of the suit properties among family members. The plaintiff alleges she purchased the properties legally, while the defendants derive their claim through an alleged illegal sale from a family member without valid rights. (Paras 4-10)

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit was erroneous given that she had acquired valid rights and was in possession, confirming her title. (Paras 12, 24-26)

Issues: The main issues examined included whether the suit should abate under the OCH and PFL Act and the sufficiency of reasons provided by the 1st appellate court for its reversal of the trial court's finding. (Paras 15, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court upheld that once finalized, the RoR is binding, and civil courts lack authority to dispute these findings. The claims by the plaintiff were substantiated by evidence showing her legitimate rights. (Paras 22, 24)

Result: Appeal dismissed, judgment of the 1st appellate court affirmed.

Table of Content
1. 2nd appeal against reversing judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual background of family pedigree and property rights. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. issues framed and trial court's findings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. 1st appellate court allowed the appeal. (Para 12 , 13)
5. substantial questions of law discussed regarding abatement and reasoning. (Para 15 , 21)
6. application of law regarding consolidation ror. (Para 23 , 24)
7. dismissal of 2nd appeal and confirmation of 1st appellate court's decision. (Para 26 , 27 , 28)

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the defendant nos.1 to 4 before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.106 of 1977 and respondent nos.1 to 4 before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1979.

3. The respondent in this 2^nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.106 of 1977 and appellant before the1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1979.

The suit of the plaintiff (respondent in this 2^nd appeal, i.e., Hara Bewa) against the defendants(appellants in this 2^nd appeal) vide T.S. No.106 of 1977 was a suit for declaration, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.

4. As per the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendants belong to one family.

In order to have a clarity, the undisputed family pedigree of the plaintiff and defendants given in the plaint is depicted hereunder:-

5. As per the aforesaid genealogy, Bhagabat Nandi was the common ancestor of the plaintiff and defendants. Bhagabat Nandi died leaving behind his two sons Hari Nandi and Balaram Nandi.

Hari Nandi died leaving behind his son Jairam Nandi and daughter Radha Nandi.

Jairam Nandi died leaving behind his only son Gana Nandi.

Gana Nandi died during his bachelorhood.

The defendant no.5 is the son of Radha.

The 2^nd son of Bhagabat Nandi, i.e., Balaram Nandi died leaving behind his two sons, i.e., Bandhu Nandi and Krupasindhu Nandi.

Bandhu Nandi died leaving behind his two daughters, i.e., Sara Dei and Para Dei.

Krupasindhu Nandi died leaving behind his one son and one daughter, i.e., Laxmidhar and Hara Dei. Hara Dei is the plaintiff in the suit.

6. According to the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff, the suit properties were recorded jointly in the settlement of the year 1930 in the name of Gana Nandi, Bandhu Nandi and Krupasindhu Nandi. Hari Nandi died prior to 1920 leaving behind his son Jairam Nandi. Jairam Nandi died before 1930 leaving behind his son Gana Nandi.

As, Hari Nandi died prior to 1920, for which, his interest in the suit properties had not devolved upon his daughter Radha, as Radha was a pre-Act daughter.

When, Gana Nandi died, his interest left in the suit properties devolved upon Bandhu Nandi and Krupasindhu Nandi. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from two daughters of Bandhu Nandi after the death of Bandhu Bandi, i.., from Sara Dei and Para Dei on dated 09.07.1954 for a consideration amount of Rs.500/- and took possession of the same. For which, the plaintiff became the owner over the suit properties and she is in possession over the same.

The defendant no.5 being the son of the daughter of Hari Nandi, i.e., Radha, he(defendant no.5) had/has no interest in the suit properties, as Radha had no interest in the same, but, without having his any interest in the suit properties, he(defendant no.5) sold the same illegally through registered sale deed dated 30.06.1977 to the defendant nos.1 to 4 (appellants in this 2^nd appeal) without any consideration amount and without delivery of possession. On the basis of the said illegal sale deed dated 30.06.1977, the defendant no.1 to 4 created disturbances in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties. For which, the plaintiff approached the civil court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.106 of 1977 against the defendants praying for declaration of her right, title and interest ove