Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to override Consolidation Authority's decisions unless challenged; adoption claims must adhere to legal standards to affirm property rights.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

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

2. The predecessor of the appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(e), 2(a) to 2(d) and 3 to 4 i.e. Bharat Moharana, Bankim Moharana, Khetrabasi Moharana & Sribatsa Moharana were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.72 of 1986 and respondents before the First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.77 of 1990.

The predecessor of the respondents i.e. Bikala Moharana was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.72 of 1986 and appellant before the First Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.77 of 1990.

When during the pendency of the 1^st Appeal, the said appellant (plaintiff) expired, then, his LRs were substituted in his place.

3. The suit of the plaintiff (Bikala Moharana) against the defendants i.e. against Bharat Moharana, Bankim Moharana, Khetrabasi Moharana & Sribasta Moharana was a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession.

As per the pleadings of the plaintiff, his common ancestor was Dasa Moharana. Dasa Moharana died leaving behind his 4 sons i.e. Bhaiga, Darsan, Chhakadi & Brundaban.

Bhaiga died leaving behind his 4 sons i.e. Rama, Sindhu, Shyam & Laxmidhar. Rama died leaving behind his two sons i.e. Hari & Bikal. Hari died issueless. Bikala is the plaintiff in the suit.

Sindhu, Laxmidhar and Shyam died issueless.

Darsan died leaving behind his 4 children i.e. Mandari, Chama, Musei & Madhu. Mandari, Chama, Musei & Madhu died issueless. Chhakadi died issueless.

Brundaban died leaving behind his 3 sons i.e. Dadhi, Jadu and Bandhu. Khati is the wife of Jadu. Dadhi, and Bandhu died issueless.

The aforesaid genealogy of the plaintiff is described in Schedule “A” of the plaint and the same is depicted hereunder for an instant reference:

According to the plaintiff (Bikal), he (plaintiff) alone is entitled to inherit the suit properties left by his common ancestor Dasa Moharana. The properties described in Schedule “B” are the suit properties. Though, the plaintiff has no dispute with the defendant Nos.2 to 4, but, they (defendant Nos.2 to 4) have been arrayed as parties in the suit, as their names have been jointly recorded in respect of Lot No.2 of Schedule “B” suit properties under Khata No.81. The defendant No.1 i.e. Bharat Moharana is a stranger to his family. He (defendant No.1) is not the son of Jadu and Khati. He (defendant No.1 Bharat Moharana) has never been adopted by Jadu & Khati at any point of time. He defendant No.1 is a Goonda, powerful, rich and litigant person and he always used to take law to his own hands. He (defendant No.1) has no manner of right, title and interest or possession over the suit properties.

He (plaintiff) is a poor simple and lame person. So, taking the advantage of his poverty, simplicity and deformity, the defendant No.1 illegally claimed himself as the adopted son of Jadu & Khati before the Consolidation Authorities.

In spite of rejection of the claimed status of the defendant No.1 as the adopted son of Jadu & Khati, he (defendant No.1) has managed to record his name illegally in respect of the suit properties as the son of Jadu & Khati without the knowledge of Khati. The Consolidation Authorities had no power and jurisdiction to decide the status of the defendant No.1 as the adopted son of Jadu and Khati. For which, the recording of the name of defendant No.1 as the son of Jadu and Khati in the Consolidat