JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This revision arises under the following circumstances: Opposite parties 1 to 5 as Plaintiffs brought O.S. No. 150 of 1977-1 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore against the Petitioners and the other opposite parties praying for a declaration of their title to the suit properties on an adjudication that the sale-deeds executed by Defendant No. 29 in favour of Defendants 1 to 28 in respect of the same were void and inoperative. Petitioners 1 to 3 are the sons, Petitioner No. 4 is the wife and Petitioner No. 5 is the mother of Defendant No. 29. It was alleged that the alienations made by Defendant No. 29 in favour of Defendants 1 to 28 were without legal necessity and tainted with immorality. Admittedly, the suit lands were brought under the consolidation operation by virtue of a notification issued u/s 3 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). An application was, therefore, filed by the Defendants for an order of abatement of the suit under the provisions of Section 4(4) of the Act. The learned Subordinate Judge relying on the decisions reported in Gorakh Nath Dube Vs. Hari Narain Singh and Others, and Gadadkar Sahu and Ors. v. Chintamani Sahu and Ors. 42 (1976) C.L.T. 1218 held that the suit would not abate and is maintainable in the civil Court. Aggrieved by this order the Defendants have come up in revision. It is urged that the suit being one for declaration of title would abate u/s 4(4) of the Act. 2. In Gorakh Nath Dube Vs. Hari Narain Singh and Others, the claim of the Plaintiff was that the sale of his half share by his uncle was invalid inoperative and void. In the suit the Plaintiff had prayed for cancellation of the sale deed executed by his uncle to the extent of his half share. It was held that the suit was covered by the relevant provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the claim had to be adjudicated upon by the Consolidation authorities. In the suit the Plaintiff had prayed for cancellation of the sale deed executed by his uncle to the extent of his half share. It was held that the suit was covered by the relevant provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the claim had to be adjudicated upon by the Consolidation authorities. It was, however, pointed out that there is a distinction between the cases were 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. The latter class of cases were held to be outside the scope of the provision relating to abatement of suits. The above principles were followed by this Court in Gadadhar Sahu and Ors. v. Chintamani Sahu and Ors. 42 (1976) C.L.T. 1218. referred to above. 3. An alienation by the manager of a Hindu joint family without legal necessity is voidable and not void - see Raj Kumar Raghubanchmani Prasad Narain Singh Vs. Ambica Prasad Singh (Dead) by Lawyers and Others. In the instant case, the Plaintiffs contention was that the alienations effected by Defendant No. 29 were made without legal necessity. If the alienations were made without legal necessity, they would be voidable at the instance of the Plaintiffs. The alienations have to be actually set aside before they can cease to have legal effect. The sale-deeds are binding on the Plaintiffs unless they are set aside. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, the question of the validity of the sale deeds executed by Defendant No. 29 cannot be adjudicated upon by the consolidation authorities. The learned Subordinate Judge was, therefore justified in holding that the suit would not abate u/s 4(4) of the Act and that it is maintainable in the Civil Court. 4. There is no merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Final Result : Dismissed