A party cannot re-agitate land rights questions already adjudicated by consolidation authorities, as such decisions are binding and preclude the same issues from being litigated in civil court.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

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

2. The appellant of this 2^nd appeal was the plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.21 of 1985 and he was the appellant in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.46 of 1992.

The respondent of this 2^nd appeal was the defendant before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.21 of 1985 and he was the respondent in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.46 of 1992.

The suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.21 of 1985 was a suit for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff over the suit properties, confirmation her possession thereon and for permanent injunction against the defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.21 of 1985 as per the averments made in her plaint in short was that, the suit properties were originally belonged to the defendant. The defendant sold the suit properties to her (plaintiff) by executing and registering a sale deed on 07.01.1985 for a consideration money of Rs.2,000/- and delivered possession of the suit properties to her on its next day. At the time of execution of the sale deed on 07.01.1985, it was agreed between him (plaintiff) and defendant that, she (plaintiff) will pay the consideration amount of the sale deed, i.e., Rs.2,000/- at the time of receiving the registration ticket of the sale deed from the defendant. Thereafter, out of the consideration amount, i.e., Rs.2,000/- the husband of the plaintiff paid Rs.1300/- to the defendant in presence of their villagers, namely, Krushna Chandra Mishra, Krupasindhu Panigrahi and others on the next day of registration, i.e., on 08.01.1985 and the defendant was agreed to hand over the registration ticket of the sale deed after receiving the rest consideration amount of the sale deed, i.e., Rs.700/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff and her husband offered the rest consideration of amount, i.e., Rs.700/- to the defendant on various occasions and asked the defendant to hand over the registration ticket of the sale deed, but, the defendant avoided to provide the same by taking various pleas. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent Advocate notice to the defendant requesting him (defendant) to hand over the registration ticket of the sale deed after receiving the balance consideration of amount from her (plaintiff), but, the defendant disclosed before the plaintiff that, on 01.02.1985 that, he (defendant) has cancelled the above sale deed, which was executed on 07.01.1985 through a deed of cancellation and threatened to disposses the plaintiff from the suit properties. For which, without getting any way, the plaintiff approached the civil court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.21 of 1985 being the plaintiff against the defendant praying for declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit properties and for confirmation of her possession thereon and also for permanent injunction against the defendant in order to restrain the defendant permanently from interfering into the plaintiff’s possession over the suit properties.

4. Having been noticed from the trial court in T.S. No.21 of 1985, the defendant contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing his written statement denying the above averments made by the plaintiff in her plaint by taking his stands therein that, he(defendant) has his own dwelling house and stationary shop over the suit properties. The suit properties are their undivided family dwelling house, in which, he (defendant) and his brother Chintamani Senapati have joint share. He (defendant