JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - By the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhadrak, directed abatement of O.S. No. 63 of 1981 u/s 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 ('Act') for short. The Plaintiff (Petitioner) has assailed that order in this Civil Revision. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to state the facts averred in the plaint in detail. Defendant-6 (opp. party 6) was the original recorded tenant in respect of C.S. Plot No. 1375 with an area of Ac.1.31 decimals appertaining to Khata No. 680 of mouza Banth, which corresponds to Hal Plot No. 1437. By virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 7-5-19691 Defendant 6 sold Ac. 0. 651/2 decimals out of the aforesaid plot from the northern side for consideration in favour of the Plaintiff. After purchase, the Plaintiff got his name mutated, paid rents and remained in physical possession thereof. By virtue of another registered sale-deed dated 17-3-1972, Defendant 6 sold Ac. 0. 25 decimals out of the balance Ac. 0. 651/2 decimals from the southern portion in favour of Defendants 4 and 5 (opposite parties 4 and 5) for consideration and since then the purchasers are in actual physical possession of the land. After the sales, Defendant 6 was in possession of only Ac. 0. 30 decimals of land. On 29-9-1972, by a registered sale deed, Defendant 6 sold Ac. 0. 16 decimals out of the balance land in his possession in favour of Defendants 1 and 2 (opposite parties 1 and 2). After the sale, the purchasers are in possession thereof. Having transferred specific areas of lands Gut of C.S. Plot No. 1375, Defendant 6 remained in possession of the balance Ac. 0. 14 decimals. Peculiarly enough, by fraudulent means, Defendant 1 obtained a sham and nominal sale deed from Defendant 6 on 4-5-1973 in respect of Ac. 0. 95 decimals out of the said plot. The sale deed was executed in favour of Defendant-3 (opposite party 3), wife of Defendant 1. Having divested himself of title and possession by alienating Ac. 1. 061/2 decimals and being in possession of only Ac. 0. 14 decimals out of the suit plot No. 1375, Defendant 6 had neither the title nor possession to alienate Ac. 0. 95 decimals therefrom in favour at Defendant 3 on 4-5-1973. Having divested himself of title and possession by alienating Ac. 1. 061/2 decimals and being in possession of only Ac. 0. 14 decimals out of the suit plot No. 1375, Defendant 6 had neither the title nor possession to alienate Ac. 0. 95 decimals therefrom in favour at Defendant 3 on 4-5-1973. On the basis of the sham and nominal sale deed, Defendant 1 created disturbance, tresspassed into the suit land in Plaintiff's possession and reaped away standing paddy crops raised by the Plaintiff. Finding that his title and possession in respect of the suit land was clouded, the Plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his title in respect of the suit land, for further declaration that the sale deed dated 4-5-1973 is invalid and ineffective, for confirmation of possession for partition, delivery of possession through court and for damages. 3. Even before the Defendants 1, 2 and 3 filed written statements, a petition was filed for directing abatement of the suit,under Section 4(4) on the ground that by notification u/s 3(1) of the Act, the suit land has been brought under consolidation operation. The Plaintiff opposed the petition on the ground that his main prayer is to declare the sale deed dated 4-5-1973 invalid and ineffective. The Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to make such a declaration. It is only the civil court of competent jurisdiction which can declare the said deed invalid and ineffective. Therefore, the suit cannot abate and has to be decided in the civil court. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, after hearing both parties, held that the main relief claimed by the Plaintiff is for declaration of his title, confirmation of possession and partition. As the Consolidation Officer has jurisdiction to grant the reliefs, the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred and so the suit must abate. Accordingly, he passed the impugned order of abatement. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff urged that in order to grant the reliefs of declaration of title, confirmation of possession and partition, the sale deed executed by Defendant-6 in favour of Defendant 3 on 4-5-1973 is to be declared invalid in the eye of law and set aside. The Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to declare the sale deed invalid and set it aside. It is only the civil court which has jurisdiction to declare the said deed invalid, ineffective and set it aside. The Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction to declare the sale deed invalid and set it aside. It is only the civil court which has jurisdiction to declare the said deed invalid, ineffective and set it aside. Therefore, not the Consolidation Officer, but the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the suit, Accordingly, the order of abatement of the suit cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel for the Defendants, on the other hand, urged that after effecting the sales in favour of the Plaintiff, Defendants 4 and 5 and Defendant 2 by sale deeds dated 7-5-1969, 17-3-1972 and 29-9-1972, Defendant-6 had no saleable interest in respect of Ac. 0. 95 decimals of land in the suit plot. The sale of Ac. 0. 95 decimals out of the suit plot in favour of Defendant 3 by sale deed dated 4-5-1973 was in excess of his saleable interest and so the said deed was an out and out void, inoperative and ineffective document. This being the position, the Consolidation Officer has jurisdiction to ignore the void sale deed and grant the reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is the Consolidation Officer who is competent to decide the dispute between the parties and not the civil court. So the impugned order of abatement cannot be disturbed. 6. In view of the contentions raised, the point for consideration is whether the sale deed dated 4-5-1973 executed by Defendant 6 in favour of Defendant-3 in respect of Ac. 0. 95 decimals out of the suit land is a void document or a voidable one. If it is a document void ab initio, the Consolidation Officer has jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the parties and grant the reliefs. If it is a voidable document, the civil court has jurisdiction to set it aside as being ineffective and inoperative and grant the reliefs prayed for. 7. It is well recognised that the plaint as a whole and not the paragraph where the reliefs sought are enumerated is to be read in order to determine as to whether the suit abates u/s 4(4) of the Act, Binay Krushna Sadangi and Others Vs. Smt. Katyaini Sadangi and Others, and Gopala Behera v. Madhan @ Madhab Behera 1986 (1) O.H.C.C. 113. Smt. Katyaini Sadangi and Others, and Gopala Behera v. Madhan @ Madhab Behera 1986 (1) O.H.C.C. 113. If an alienation made by sale deed would be voidable at the instance of the Plaintiff, the suit cannot abate u/s 4(4) of the Act, because, the validity thereof cannot be adjudicated upon by the Consolidation Officer but by the civil court. Gangadhar Mandal and Others Vs. Shyamsundar Mandal and Others, and Binay Krushna Sadangi and Others Vs. Smt. Katyaini Sadangi and Others, Section 7 of the Act empowers the consolidation authorities to effect partition of joint holdings. So the relief of partition is a matter in regard to which proceedings can be started under the Act and by virtue of Section 4(4) of the Act, the suit for partition must abate Puni Bewa and Another Vs. Ananta Sahoo and Others, With regard to alienation made by documents which are void ab initio, the principle of law has been clearly enunciated in the of quoted decision of the Supreme Court reported in Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh and Ors. 1973 S.C.D. 886. Section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 is almost identical with Section 4(4) of the Act. Explaining the scope thereof, Beg, J. speaking for the Court held: ...The whole object of this provision of the Act was to remove from the jurisdiction of ordinary civil and revenue courts, for the duration of consolidation operations, all disputes which could be decided in course of the consolidation proceedings before special courts governed by special procedure. Such adjudications by the consolidation authorities were considered more suitable, just and efficacious for speedy decisions which had to be taken in order to enable the consolidation operations to be finalised within a reasonable time. With regard to applicability of the principle of abatement of suits based on deeds of alienation which are void ab initio or which are voidable at the instance of the Plaintiff, it was explained: ...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 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 land which are the subject matter of 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 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. In the case before us, the Plaintiff's claim is that the sale of his half share by his uncle was invalid, inoperative, and void, such a claim could be adjudicated upon by consolidation courts. We find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Jagannath Shukla's case 1969 All. L.J. 768 (supra), that it is the substance of the claim and not its form which is decisive. The aforesaid view has been followed in Bai Bewa Vs. Jayakrishna Rautray and Another Sridhar Mohanty Vs. Kamal Kumar Agarwalla, Siba Prasad Dashson Vs. Kali Charan Dash, and Binay Krushna Sadangi and Others Vs. Smt. Katyaini Sadangi and Others, . 8. Reverting to the facts averred in the plaint, it is manifest that Defendant 6 after effecting sales on 7-5-1969 in favour of the Plaintiff, on 17-3-1972 in favour of Defendants 4 and 5 and on 29-9-1972 in favour of Defendant 2 had saleable interest only in respect of Ac. 0. 14 decimals of land out of the suit plot. He had no saleable interest in respect of Ac. 0. 95 decimals of land out of the same. Therefore, he could not alienate Ac. 0. 95 decimals of land out of the suit plot in favour of Defendant 3 by sale deed dated 4-5-1973. 0. 14 decimals of land out of the suit plot. He had no saleable interest in respect of Ac. 0. 95 decimals of land out of the same. Therefore, he could not alienate Ac. 0. 95 decimals of land out of the suit plot in favour of Defendant 3 by sale deed dated 4-5-1973. So it is a clear case of alienation made in excess of power and to that extent of the excess of power, the alienation made by sale deed dated 4-5-1973 is invalid, in other words, void ab initio. This case is, therefore, completely covered by the case of Gorakh Nath5 (supra) and so there is no escape from the conclusion that the sale deed dated 4-5-1973 being invalid, inoperative and void, the Plaintiff's claims can be adjudicated upon by the Consolidation Officer and not by the civil court. In this view of the matter, the order of abatement passed by the learned Subordinate Judge cannot be disturbed. 9. In the result, the civil revision is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Final Result : Dismissed