JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - This is defendants second appeal arising out of a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 7th September, 1965. 2. According to the plaintiffs case, half of the plot in suit along with house was purchased by the plaintiff from Umrao for Rs. 2500/- only and the name of the plaintiff was also recorded in revenue papers. It was alleged that defendant nos. 4 and 5 executed sale-deed on 7-9-1965 in favour of defendant nos. 1 to 3. It was alleged that at the time of the execution of the sale deed the plaintiff was a minor and no permission was obtained from the District Judge for executing the sale deed, 3. The defendants 1 to 3 contested the aforesaid suit on the ground that Shrimati Subhagi was the Karta of the joint family of the plaintiff and plaintiff knew about the sale deed from the very beginning and that the sale deed was executed for the benefit of the plaintiff. Various other pleas were also taken. 4. The plaintiffs suit was decreed by the trial court and the sale deed was cancelled to the extent of the plaintiff's share. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed an appeal which has also been dismissed. 5. In the present second appeal an application under Section 5 (2) (a) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was moved on behalf of the defendants-appellants praying that the appeal and the suit giving rise to the appeal be abated as the village where the land in dispute lies has been brought under the Consolidation operation by the Gazette notification published under Section 4 (2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act on 23-8-1975. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has, however, urged that the suit and the appeal would not abate inasmuch as a sale deed executed without the permission of the District Judge is only voidable at the instance of the minor and thus the consolidation courts could not cancel the sale deed unless it was avoided by a competent court. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gorakh Nath v. H.N. Singh ( AIR 1973 SC 2451 ). Reliance has also been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Ram Nath v. Srimati Munna (1976 RD 220). 6. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gorakh Nath v. H.N. Singh ( AIR 1973 SC 2451 ). Reliance has also been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Ram Nath v. Srimati Munna (1976 RD 220). 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, strongly placed reliance on a decision of the Kerala High Court reported in Iruppakkatti Veettie Vishwanathan's Wife Santha v. Deceased Kandan's L. Rs. Wife Cherukutty & others ( AIR 1972 Ker 71 ). It has been urged on the basis of the aforesaid decision that it is net at all necessary for the minor to file a suit for avoiding the sale deed and he can avoid it by conduct. 7. The relevant provisions of Section 8 (2) and 8 (3) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 provides - "8 (2). The natural guardian shall not, without the previous permission of the court : - (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of the minor, or (b) lease any part of such property for a term exceeding five years for a term extending more than one year beyond the date on which the minor will attain majority. (3) Any disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him." From she aforesaid provision there cannot be any doubt that a sale deed which has been executed in contravention of the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 8 is voidable at the instance of the minor. The Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath Dubey's case (supra) has clearly laid down :- "....We think that a distinction can be made between cases where a document is wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by any court or authority and one where it has to be actually set aside before it can cease to have legal effect. An alienation made in excess of power to transfer would be to the extent of the excess of power, invalid. An adjudication on the effect of such a purported alienation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a dispute involving conflicting claims to rights or interests in consolidation proceedings. An alienation made in excess of power to transfer would be to the extent of the excess of power, invalid. An adjudication on the effect of such a purported alienation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a dispute involving conflicting claims to rights or interests in consolidation proceedings. The existence and quantum of rights claimed or denied will have to be declared by the consolidation authorities which would be deemed to be invested with jurisdiction, by the necessary implication of their statutory powers to adjudicate upon such rights and interests in land, to declare such documents effective or ineffective, but, where there is a document the legal effect of which can only be taken away by setting it aside or its cancellation, it could be urged that the consolidation authorities have no power to cancel the deed, and, therefore, it must be held to be binding on them so long as it is not cancelled by a court having the power to cancel it." (emphasis provided)". 8. A Full Bench of this court in the case of Ram Nath (supra) held while interpreting the aforesaid Supreme Court case :- "The void documents, it found were invalid and were liable to be disregarded by the consolidation authorities. So far as the other class of documents, viz., the voidable documents was concerned, the observation of the Supreme Court is clearly to the effect that their legal effect can be taken away only by their being cancelled or set aside and that the documents, could be cancelled only by a court having power to cancel them and that the documents remain binding so long as they were not cancelled. It is further clear from the judgment that the consolidation authorities had no power to cancel such documents. These observations of the Supreme Court in our opinion, ate sufficient declaration of the law that the documents which are voidable can be cancelled by the Civil Courts only and can not be cancelled by consolidation authorities and they remain effective till cancelled and liable to be given effect to by consolidation till they are cancelled by the competent court. In view of this law declared by the Supreme Court there can be no doubt that the suit in respect of cancellation of voidable sale deed will not abate under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In view of this law declared by the Supreme Court there can be no doubt that the suit in respect of cancellation of voidable sale deed will not abate under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. So far as the case on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant i.e. 1972 Kerala page 71, it is true in the aforesaid case it has been held that the transfer of a minors property by his natural guardian without sanction of the court is voidable at the instance of the minor and the minor can avoid it by his conduct without a suit. In my opinion, however, in view of the categorical pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Gorakh Nath Dube (supra), as interpreted by the Full Bench of this Court, there is no room for doubt that as far as voidable documents are concerned, they have to be avoided by filing a suit before a competent court, and that the suit will not abate under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The application moved by the learned counsel for the appellant for abating the suit as well as appeal, is therefore, liable to be rejected. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the decision of the courts below on merits on the ground that the sale deed was for legal necessity and thus should not have been cancelled. The provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act are clear. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was a minor at the time of the execution of the sale deed and the sale deed was executed without obtaining the permission of the District Judge. The sale deed was thus voidable at the instance of the minor and, in my opinion, the two courts below have rightly decreed the plaintiffs suit. 10. For the reasons stated above, the present second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own cost.