Sanatan Vs Hara

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.

¶13

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 the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1979.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Genealogy

¶18

Bhagabat Nandi

¶19

______
Hari Nandi Balaram Nandi

Jairam Radha(daughter)
(Mother of the D-5)
Gana Nandi
(who died unmarried)
______
Bandhu Nandi Krupasindhu Nandi

Sara Dei Para Dei
Laxmidhar Hara Dei(plaintiff)
Sudari Bewa(wife of Laxmidhar)

¶20

Page 2 of 16

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Jairam Nandi died leaving behind his only son Gana Nandi.

¶24

Gana Nandi died during his bachelorhood.

¶25

The defendant no.5 is the son of Radha.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

According to the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiff, the

¶30

suit properties were recorded jointly in the settlement of the year 1930 in the name of Gana Nandi, Bandhu Nandi and Krupasindhu Nandi. Hari

¶31

Page 3 of 16

¶32

Nandi died prior to 1920 leaving behind his son Jairam Nandi. Jairam Nandi died before 1930 leaving behind his son Gana Nandi.

¶33

As, Hari Nandi died prior to 1920, for which, his interest in the suit

¶34

properties had not devolved upon his daughter Radha, as Radha was a pre-Act daughter.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties. For which, the plaintiff

¶38

Page 4 of 16

¶39

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 over the Schedule-A suit properties and for confirmation of her possession thereon as well as for permanent injunction.

¶40

Having been noticed from the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.106 of 1977, the defendants contested the same by filing their joint written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in her plaint taking their stands specifically that, Jairam Nandi(the father of Gana Nandi) was separated from Bandhu Nandi and Krupasindhu Nandi in mess and property. Gana Nandi was possessing the suit properties separately. Radha Nandi is not the daughter of Hari Nandi, but, she(Radha Nandi) was the daughter of Jariam Nandi and sister of Gana Nandi. After the death of Gana Nandi, his interest in the suit properties had devolved upon Radha Nandi and after the death of Radha Nandi, her interest in the suit properties had devolved upon her son, i.e., defendant no.5 and as such, he(defendant no.5) had right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties and he(defendant no.5) has sold the suit properties properly to the defendant nos.1 to 4 by executing and registering the sale deed dated 30.06.1977 for a consideration amount of Rs.1,000/- and delivered the possession thereof. As such, the defendant nos.1 to 4 being the purchasers of the suit properties, they are in

¶41

Page 5 of 16

¶42

possession over the same, as the owners of the suit properties, in which, the plaintiff has no interest. For which, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies

¶44

between the parties altogether four numbers of issues were framed by the

¶45

learned trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.106 of 1977-I and the said issues are:-

¶46

I S S U E S

¶47

Is the suit maintainable?

¶48

Has the plaintiff any cause of action to bring the suit?

¶49

Has the plaintiff any right, title, interest or possession in respect of the suit land?

¶50

Is the plaintiff entitled to any relief?

¶51

In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief sought for by the plaintiff against the defendants, during trial of the suit before the learned trial court, she (plaintiff) examined six witnesses from her side including her(plaintiff) as P.W.6 and exhibited three documents on her behalf vide Exts.1 to 3.

¶52

On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiff, the defendants examined four witnesses from their side including the defendant no.1 as D.W.1 and exhibited one document on their behalf

¶53

vide Ext.A.

¶54

Page 6 of 16

¶55

After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the learned trial court answered issue nos.1, 2 and 3 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants and basing upon the findings and observations made by the learned trial court in the issue nos.1, 2 and 3, the learned trial court dismissed the suit of plaintiff vide T.S. No.106 of 1977 as per its judgment and decree dated 14.02.1979 and 22.02.1979 respectively assigning the reasons that,

¶56

“it is established that, Radha was the mother of the defendant no.5 and sister of Gana Nandi being the daughter of Jairam Nandi. After the death of Gana Nandi, his interest in the suit properties had devolved upon the mother of the defendant no.5, i.e., Radha. After the death of Radha, her interest in the suit properties had devolved upon the defendant no.5 and the defendant no.5 had rightly sold the suit properties to the defendant nos.1 to 4 through registered sale deed dated 30.06.1977 vide Ext.A and delivered possession thereof and for which, the defendant nos.1 to 4 are the owners and in possession over the suit properties, in which, the plaintiff has no interest. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff must fail.”

¶57

On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff passed by the learned trial court,

¶58

Page 7 of 16

¶59

the plaintiff challenged the same preferring the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1979 being the appellant against the defendants arraying them (defendants) as respondents.

¶60

After hearing from both the sides, the learned 1^st appellate court allowed that 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1979 filed by the appellant(plaintiff) on contest and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.106 of 1977 on contest and injuncted the defendants permanently not to come upon the suit land assigning the reasons that,

¶61

“due to the continuation of the consolidation operation in respect of the suit properties, the findings of the learned trial court in respect of the right, title and interest in relation to the suit properties will be a finding without jurisdiction and the same will have no binding effect upon the consolidation authority and held that, finding on the right, title and interest in respect of the suit land is required in order to decide the relief, i.e., permanent injunction.

¶62

As such, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of the parties, the learned 1^st appellate court came to the conclusion that, Gana was the jointly recorded tenants of the suit properties with Bandhu

¶63

Nandi and Krupasindhu Nandi in the RoR vide Ext.2 of the year 1930, which proves that, by that time, his father Jairam Nandi had expired.

¶64

Page 8 of 16

¶65

It is also established that, Gana Nandi died without wife and child. As, Jairam Nandi(father of Gana Nandi) had expired prior to 1930, then, even if, it will be held that, Radha is the daughter of Jairam Nandi still then, she being a pre-Act daughter, she had no interest in the suit properties.”

¶66

When, the plaintiff is claiming that, Radha is the daughter of Hari Nandi and the mother of the defendant no.5, to which, the defendants are disputing and they are stating that, Radha is the daughter of Jairam Nandi and sister of Gana Nandi.

¶67

Though, the defendant no.5 (who has sold the suit properties) is claiming him as the son of Radha, but, he (defendant no.5) did not come to depose about the same during the trial of the suit. For which, the learned 1^st appellate court held that, the case of the plaintiff is correct, i.e., Radha was the daughter of Hari Nandi and the sister of Jairam Nandi as well as „Piusi‟ of Gana Nandi, but, she Radha(mother of defendant no.5) was not the daughter of Jairam Nandi and sister of Gana Nandi.

¶68

The joint RoR vide Ext.2(RoR of the year 1930) speaks that, Gana was not separated from Bandhu Nandi and Krupasindhu Nandi. For which, when Gana Nandi died issueless leaving his interest in the suit

¶69

Page 9 of 16

¶70

properties, then as per law, his interest in the suit properties devolved upon Bandhu Nandi and Krupasindhu Nandi.

¶71

The daughters of Bandhu Nandi, i.e. Sara Dei and Para Dei have sold their interest in the suit properties to the plaintiff by executing and registering sale deed dated 09.07.1954.

¶72

It is also established from the oral and documentary evidence available in the record that, the plaintiff is in possession over the suit properties, but, the defendants are not in possession over the same. For which, the learned 1^st appellate court arrived at a conclusion for setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.106 of 1977 in part on contest against the defendants and injuncted the defendants permanently from coming over the suit land.”

¶73

On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 28.02.1987 and 06.03.1987 respectively passed by the 1^st appellate court in T.A. No.12 of 1979 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, they(defendant nos.1 to 4) challenged the same preferring this 2^nd appeal being the appellants against the plaintiff arraying her(plaintiff) as respondent.

¶74

Page 10 of 16

¶75

When, during the pendency of this 2^nd appeal, the appellant nos.1 to 3 expired, then, in their places, their legal heirs were substituted.

¶76

Likewise, when the respondent(plaintiff) in this 2^nd appeal expired, then, in her place, her legal heirs have been substituted.

¶77

This 2^nd appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law, i.e.:-

¶78

(i) Whether the suit being one for declaration of title where relief of injunction is only consequential, the appellate court should have directed abatement of the appeal under Section 4(4) of the OCH and PFL Act, 1972?

¶79

(ii) When the judgment of the 1^st appellate court is a reversing judgment, then, whether the 1^st appellate court should have given adequate reasons for taking a view different from the trial court?

¶80

I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellants(defendants) and learned counsel for the respondent no.1(plaintiff).

¶81

During the course of hearing of this 2^nd appeal, learned counsel for the respondent no.1(plaintiff) filed photo copy of the finally published RoR of the suit properties by the consolidation authorities in the meantime and contended that, the RoR of the suit properties has already

¶82

been published in the name of the plaintiff Hara Pradhan @ Hara Bewa

¶83

Page 11 of 16

¶84

under Khata No.1182, to which, the learned counsel for the appellants(defendants) did not dispute.

¶85

So, as per the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, it is established that, in the meantime, consolidation RoR of the suit properties under Khata No.1182 has already been published finally in the name of the plaintiff(respondent no.1 in this 2^nd appeal, i.e., Hara Bewa).

¶86

The above fact relating to the final publication of the consolidation RoR of the suit properties has been reflected in the order-sheet dated 11.11.2025 of this 2^nd appeal and the learned counsels of both the sides were given a chance to argue this 2^nd appeal referring the finally published consolidation RoR of the suit properties under Khata No.1182 in the name of Hara Bewa(plaintiff).

¶87

Accordingly, the learned counsels of both the sides had argued this 2^nd appeal on dated 11.11.2025 admitting the final publication of the RoR of the suit properties in the name of the plaintiff by the consolidation authorities in the meantime.

¶88

Now, it is pertinent to discuss, the aforesaid formulated substantial questions of law serially and chronologically one after another.

¶89

Page 12 of 16

¶90

So far as the 1^st formulated substantial question of law, i.e., whether the suit being one for declaration of title where relief of injunction is only consequential, the appellate court should have directed abatement of the appeal under Section 4(4) of the OCH and PFL Act is concerned,

¶91

On this aspect, it has been specifically answered by the learned 1^st appellate court in Para No.6 of its judgment and decree that, the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the relief, i.e., permanent injunction cannot abate, during the pendency of the consolidation proceeding, because, such relief is beyond the scope/purview of the consolidation authorities. The said observations of the learned 1^st appellate court is not unreasonable under law on the basis of the decisions relied by the learned 1^st appellate court in Para No.6 of its judgment and decree for reaching into such a conclusion.

¶92

Therefore, findings and observations made by the learned 1^st appellate court in Para No.6 of its judgment that, the suit of the plaintiff shall not abate in respect of the relief, i.e., permanent injunction has become acceptable under law. Therefore, the aforesaid formulated 1^st substantial question of law is answered against the appellants/defendants.

¶93

So far as the 2^nd formulated substantial question of law, i.e., when the judgment of the 1^st appellate court is a reversing judgment,

¶94

Page 13 of 16

¶95

then, whether, the appellate court should have given adequate reasons for taking a view different from the trial court is concerned;

¶96

When, it is established from the submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides that, in the meantime, the RoR of the suit properties has already been published by the consolidation authorities under Khata No.1182 in the name of the plaintiff and when, there is no material in the record to show about the variation/alteration/cancellation of the said finally published consolidation RoR under Khata No.1182 of the suit properties, then at this juncture, whether this appellate court can take such finally published consolidation RoR of the suit properties into consideration for pronouncing the judgment in this 2^nd appeal or not.

¶97

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶98

(i) In a case between Chhabi Bagh vrs. Saila Bagh(dead) and others : reported in 2018(2) CLR-31 at Para-12 and in a case between Harekrushna Dash vrs. Sadasiva Dash : reported in 2018(2) CLR-951 that, consolidation RoR holds good for right, title and interest of the recorded land.

¶99

The mouza where the suit land falls under the consolidation operation and the consolidation authorities have powers to adjudicate right, title and interest and where the consolidation authorities have prepared the RoR in the name of the plaintiff no.1 and have issued patta in his favour after adjudicating right, title and interest, then the said RoR holds good for all purposes unles the same is cancelled.

¶100

(ii) In a case between Bharata Moharanaand others vrs. Indumati Moharana and others : reported in 2025(1) OLR-130 that, civil court has no jurisdiction to give any finding contrary to the recordings made in the consolidation authorities in the consolidation

¶101

Page 14 of 16

¶102

RoR. Recording of the names of the parties in the consolidation RoR itself prove their status, title and possession.

¶103

(iii) In a case between Balaram Bhoi and others vrs. Babajee Bhoi and others : reported in 2007 Supl.I OLR-276 that, the RoR published by the consolidation authorities cannot be varied/set aside by the civil court.

¶104

(iv) In a case between Chintamani Kandi(Dead) after him, his L.Rs. Para Dei and others. vrs. Arjuna Kandi and others : reported in 2015(1)CLR-360, Para-13 that, during the pendency of the 2^nd appeal, the suit land was recorded in the name of the plaintiffs in the finally published RoR of consolidation operation. Title of the plaintiff to the suit land upheld solely basing on the consolidation RoR.

¶105

(v) In a case between Ram Balak Singh vrs. State of Bihar and another : reported in 2024(2) CCC-117(S.C.) that, RoR prepared by the revenue authorities are not documents of title and did not ordinarily confer or extinguish the title in land, but, nonetheless, the consolidation authorities are competent to determine the rights of the parties by exercising powers akin to civil court, for which, any order or entry made by the consolidation authorities, which attains finality, is to be respected and given effect to.

¶106

Civil court is not competent to either ignore or reverse, order passed by the consolidation officer, once it has attained finality.

¶107

(vi) In a case between Mohan Biswal. vrs. Gopinath Dev and others : reported in 2003(II) OLR-16 that, when the RoR prepared by the Consolidation Authority is not under challenge before any competent authority, the said RoR is to be respected until it is found to be illegal or incorrect.

¶108

Here, in this suit/appeal at hand, when, in the meantime, the RoR

¶109

of the suit properties has been published finally by the consolidation authorities in the name of the plaintiff(respondent no.1, Hara Bewa) under Khata No.1182 and the said consolidation RoR of the suit properties has not been varied, altered or set aside by any higher forum of consolidation authorities under the OCH and PFL Act, 1972 and when, the unchallenged finally published RoR of the consolidation authorities in favour of a person proves the title and possession of such person on

¶110

Page 15 of 16

¶111

the properties, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to this suit/appeal at

¶112

hand, it is held that, the findings and observations made by the learned 1^st appellate court reversing the findings and observations made by the learned trial court holding that, the plaintiff is in possession over the suit properties having her title on the same and the defendants have no interest therein cannot be held as erroneous under law.

¶113

Therefore, the question of interfering with the same through this 2^nd appeal filed by the appellants(defendants) does not arise.

¶114

As such, there is no merit in this 2^nd appeal filed by the appellants(defendants). The same must fail.

¶115

In result, this 2^nd appeal filed by the appellants(defendants) is dismissed on contest, but, without cost.

¶116

The judgment and decree passed by the leaned 1^st appellate court in T.A. No.12 of 1979 is confirmed.

¶117

( A.C. Behera ) Judge

¶118

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 23^rd of December, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified

¶119

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 26-Dec-2025 11:06:20

¶120

Page 16 of 16

Sanatan v. Hara

Case brief

What is this about?

Sanatan v. Hara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyabrata Amiya Ranjan Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Gitanjali Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Prakash Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Iswar Vs Asamani

Smt.B.Prabhavati Vs Srikota Achuta

Surathabala Vs Narendra