ORDER

K.P. Singh, J. - Shorn of unnecessary details the petitioner claimed the disputed property as adopted son of Baldeo whereas the contesting opposite party Ram Briksha claimed the disputed property as the nephew of Baldeo and asserted that Ram Chandra was not adopted son of Baldeo. The following pedigree is necessary for appreciation of the claims of the parties.

2. The consolidation officer through his judgment D/- 25-5-1976 accepted the claim of the petitioner (See Annexure II).

3. The appellate authority and the revisional court have given judgments against the petitioner. Aggrieved by their judgments the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. At the time of admission the learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the consolidation authorities had acted illegally in deciding the claim of the parties when the same question between the parties was pending in a civil litigation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the consolidation authorities should have stayed the hearing of the proceedings till the decision of the question by the civil court. I had not agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and had referred the question to a larger bench due to a ruling in his favour and the Division Bench has decided against the petitioner through its judgment D/- 23-11-1982.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the finding recorded by the Munsif in a Civil litigation between the parties and confirmed by the appellate court due to dismissal of the appeal in default would operate as res judicata between the parties on the question of adoption and the consolidation authorities have patently erred in recording findings to the contrary.

6. Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to cancel the adoption deed in favour of the petitioner and to record contrary findings against the deed. It has been emphasised that the adoption deed would be a voidable document which cannot be cancelled by the consolidation authorities in view of a large number of decisions, such as AIR 1973 SC 2345 (2451?), 1976 Rev. Dec. 220 : 1976 All WC 412 (FB) : 1980 All LJ 25 and 1982 All WC 748: (2) (1982 All LJ NOC 122).

7. Third contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the adoption deed being a registered one, a presumption should have been raised in favour of the petitioner about the validity of his adoption.

8. The fourth contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the question of parentage in dispute between the parties.

9. Lastly, it has been contended that the higher consolidation authorities have failed to consider the entire evidence on record hence their findings deserve to be quashed.

10. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. According to him the finding recorded by the learned Munsif would not operate as res judicata in the circumstances of the present case. He has emphasised that the finding has not become final and the proceedings for recalling the order in appeal are going on, hence the consolidation authorities have not committed patent error in recording findings against the petitioner. He has also submitted that the litigation between the parties regarding agricultural plots was abated in a civil suit hence the consolidation authorities had full jurisdiction to decide the validity of the adoption deed and in giving findings against the petitioner, they have committed no error of law much less error apparent on the face of the record. He has also submitted that for proving a valid adoption it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove the necessary ceremonies concerning adoption which he had failed in the circumstances of the present case, hence on the basis of `a registered adoption de