Decided on December 20,1978

Puni Bewa And Anr. Appellant
Ananta Sahoo And Ors. Respondents


P.K.Mohanti, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision is directed against an order for abatement of the suit under Section 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)".
(2.) ONE Kartik Tarai died on 15 -4 -1961 leaving behind him his two daughters Puni and Pitei. Plaintiff No. 1 is Puni ana Plaintiff No. 2 is the daughter of Pitei who is dead Defendant No. 1 Ananta Sahoo claims to be the adopted son of late Kartik Tarai. Defendants 2 and 3 who are relatives of Defendant No. 1 filed O. L. R. Case No. 1001 of 1975 under Section 36 -A of the O. L. R. Act in respect of some lands left by late Kartik Tarai. They impleaded Defendant No. 1 alone as their landlord and got the lands settled in their favour on admission by Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiffs Petitioners were not made parties to that proceeding. Upon these allegations, the Plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that Defendant No. 1 is not the adopted son of late Kartik Tarai and for a further declaration that the order passed in O. L. R. Case No. 1001 of 1975 in favour of Defendants 2 and 3 was fraudulent and collusive and not binding against them. They also prayed for partition of the suit lands and for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with their possession. During the pendency of the suit a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act was published on 15 -7 -1978 and on the basis thereof it was urged on behalf of the Defendants that the entire suit stood abated under Section 4(4) of the Act. It was conceded on behalf of the Plaintiffs that the suit in so far as it relates to the relief for partition would abate but the matters relating to the other reliefs being outside the scope of the Act the entire suit could not abate. The learned Subordinate Judge came to hold that the issues relating to adoption and partition being interlinked partial abatement would lead to piecemeal hearing of the suit at different times causing harassment to the parties and in order to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and dual trial it was just and fair to order for abatement of the entire suit. Accordingly, he held that the entire suit would stand abated by virtue of Section 4(4) of the Act. Aggrieved by this order the Plaintiffs have come up in revision.
(3.) THE relevant provisions of Section 4 of the Act are extracted below: 4. Upon the publication of the notification issued under Sub -section (1) of Section 3 in the Official Gazette, the consequences as hereinafter setforth shall, subject to the provision of this Act, ensue in the consolidation area till the publication of notification under Section 41 or Sub -section (1) of Section 5, as the case may be x x x (4) every suit and proceedings for declaration of an tight of interest in any land situate within the consolidation area in regard to which proceedings could be or ought to be started under this Act which is pending before any Civil Court, whether of the first instance or appeal, reference or revision shall, on an order being passed in that behalf by the Court before which such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated. Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard: Provided further that on the issue of a notification under Sub -section (1) of Section 5 in respect of the said area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the lands situate within such area or part thereof as the case may be shall stand vacated and all such suits and proceedings shall be proceeded with and disposed of in accordance with the law as if they had never abated: Provided also that such abatement shall be without prejudice to the right of the person affected to agitate the tight or interest which formed the subject -matter of the said suit or proceeding before the proper consolidation authority in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.