JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - An application u/s 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been filed on behalf of the Defendant-Appellants for abating this second appeal as well as the suit giving rise to the second appeal under the aforesaid section on the ground that the land which is the subject matter of the suit has been brought under Consolidation operations by issuing a notification u/s 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. Having heard Counsel for the parties I am of opinion that the prayer contained in the aforesaid application deserves to be allowed. 3. The suit giving rise to the present second appeal was instituted by Plaintiff-Respondents 1 to 3 for a declaration that a mortgage deed executed by Hardeo Misra Respondent No. 4 on 4-1-1958 in favour of the Appellants in respect of certain bhumidhari plots was void and not binding on them in so far as their share in the plots mortgaged is concerned. A decree for injunction was also prayed for restraining the Defendants from interfering with the possession of the Plaintiff-Respondents over the land in dispute. The suit was contested by the Defendants and was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal by the Plaintiffs it was decreed. Aggrieved two of the Defendants preferred the present second appeal. 4. The case of the Plaintiff-Respondents has been that they were bhumi-dhars of the land in dispute along with Respondent No. 4 Hardeo Misra. The mortgage dated 4-1-1958 was executed by Hardeo Misra for self and as guardian of Plaintiff-Respondents 2 and 3 being their elder brother. The natural guardian in view of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act in respect of a boy is the father and after him the mother. In Bishen Chand v. Lakhan 1972 AWR 139 it was held that a minor's elder brother who was karta and manager of the joint family has no right to make a transfer of the bhumidhari interest of the minor unless he was a duly appointed guardian of such minor. The same view was reiterated by this Court in Bhawani Prasad Vs. Ram Deo and Another, AIR 1975 All 87 . The same view was reiterated by this Court in Bhawani Prasad Vs. Ram Deo and Another, AIR 1975 All 87 . In this view of the matter even if it is accepted that the mortgage deed dated 4-1-1958 had been executed by Hardeo Misra as elder brother of Respondents 2 and 3 and karta of a joint Hindu family the same would be void in so far as the share of his minor brother is concerned. 5. At this place it may be pointed out that even though a disposal of immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act is voidable, in case of a de facto guardian, as in the instant case, it would be void in view of Section 11 of the said Act. The mortgage in question being void and not voidable the suit for the reliefs referred to above on the issue of the notification u/s 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will have to be abated inasmuch as the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute between the parties will vest in the consolidation authorities as held by the Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath Dube Vs. Hari Narain Singh and Others, AIR 1973 SC 2451 . 6. It was urged by Counsel for the Plaintiff-Respondents that two of the plots in dispute, namely plot Nos. 717/3 and 744, were situate within the limits of the town area Sevarahi and consequently the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would not apply. I do not find any substance in this submission either. It has not been disputed that the town area Sevarahi itself was constituted on 31st July, 1971. Section 3(2-A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act defines "consolidation area" as follows: (2-A) Consolidation area" means the area in respect of which a notification u/s 4 has been issued, except such portions thereof to which the provisions of the UP ZA and LK Act, 1950, do not apply. Section 3(2-A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act defines "consolidation area" as follows: (2-A) Consolidation area" means the area in respect of which a notification u/s 4 has been issued, except such portions thereof to which the provisions of the UP ZA and LK Act, 1950, do not apply. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the UP ZA and LR Act inter alia provides: (2) It extends to the whole of the Uttar Pradesh except the areas which, on the 7th day of July, 1949, were included in a municipality or a notified area under the provisions of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act II of 1916) or a Cantonment under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (U.P. Act II of 1924) or a town area under the provisions of the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914 (U.P. Act I of 1914). Provided.... 7. Since the town area Sevarahi itself was constituted on 31st July, 1971, it is obvious that the land in dispute could not lie within the said town area on 7th July, 1949. As such the UP ZA and LR Act applied to these plots. Nothing has been brought to my notice which may indicate that on the coming into force of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act any change in this legal position took place. Consequently the UP ZA and LR Act continued to apply to these plots even after the issue of the notification u/s 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In view of the definition of the term "consolidation area" in Section 3(2-A) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the provisions of the said Act would apply to the land in dispute. 8. In the result the aforesaid application succeeds and is allowed and the second appeal aswell as the suit giving rise to this second appeal is abated u/s 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs throughout.