JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in view of the notification dated June 27, 1981, made u/s 4(1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the suit and the appeal arising from the same ought to have been abated u/s 5 of the said Act. The Cruse of the dispute would appear to be whether valid title was acquired by the appellants in pursuance of the three deeds of sale dated April, 1967, executed for and on behalf of the minors by the natural guardian, namely the mother. The deeds of sales were assailed on the ground that there being no permission obtained from the District Judge, these were voidable at the instance of the minor since the deeds of sale are not claimed to be void but only voidable, it is manifest that the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon that would vest in the civil Court and not upon the consolidation authorities. It is time, as the learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is the relief of perpetual injunction also sought, but this relief is founded upon the aforesaid deeds of sale. The title is claimed to have been acquired in pursuance of those deeds of sale. In case these deeds of sale are found to be voidable, the title would also vanish and hence the relief for permanent injunction may be said to be subsidiary or incidental to the main relief namely that of cancellation of the deeds of sale aforesaid. 2. Consideration being led to the above, the appeal was not back to be abated U/s 5 of the consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. The application is, therefore, rejected.