JUDGMENT Murlidhar, J. - This is a defendants second appeal. The suit was for cancellation of a sale-deed dated 20-8-1962 for Rs. 4000/- purporting to have been executed by Smt. Dhauri plaintiff No. 1 in respect of certain agricultural plots us well as a house, trees and bamboo clumps. The trial court held that the sale deed had been executed by an impostor Smt. Sahdevi impersonating as Dhauri and decreed the suit. The appellants filed an appeal. While the case was pending in appeal, admittedly, a notification under Section 5 Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued in respect of the area where the properties are situate. The appellant did not press the appeal in so far as it related to the house, trees and bamboo damns in dispute. He, however, urged that with regard to the agricultural plots, the suit abated under Section 5 (2) (a) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The appellate court repelled this contention, holding-that the civil court was entitled to grant the relief for cancellation which depended on the declaration that the sale deed was not a document executed by Smt. Dhauri. This is the finding challenged in this second appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Gorakh Nath Dubey v. Hari Narain Singh, ( AIR 1973 SC 2451 ) and contended that the present is a case of a document that is void ab initio and does not require to be cancelled before it ceases to have effect and as such the suit falls within the ambit of Section 5 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. This decision was followed by a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Nath v. Smt. Munna, (1976 R.D. page 220). It is not possible to accept the lower appellate court reasoning that the present suit not being in respect of a declaration of rights or interest in land is not covered by Section 5 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. The cancellation of the sale deed is desired precisely because the plaintiffs claim interest in the land covered by the sale deed. The appellants contention must, therefore, prevail. 3. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the courts below so far as the agricultural land covered by the sale-deed is concerned are set aside. The cancellation of the sale deed is desired precisely because the plaintiffs claim interest in the land covered by the sale deed. The appellants contention must, therefore, prevail. 3. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the courts below so far as the agricultural land covered by the sale-deed is concerned are set aside. Instead, it is directed that the appeal and the suit giving rise to this appeal stand abated under Section 5 of Consolidation of Holdings Act to the extent of the agricultural land covered by the sale deed. The decree for costs awarded by the courts below shall stand, but the parties shall bear their own costs in this court.