LINGARAJA RATH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is the plaintiff in the trial court has filed this revision as against the order dated 6-1-1983 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in Title Suit No. 25 of 1980/1982 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under O. 14, R. 2, Civil P. C. to decide issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue. Issue No. 3 is as follows : - "does the suit abate in view of consolidation operation in the suit village?" ( 2 ) THE petitioner's case is that he had purchased properties from opp. party No. 1 who was defendant No. 1 in the trial court and had been allotted the properties in a previous mutual partition between defendants 1, 2 and 3. It is the petitioner's case that he had purchased the suit properties from the opp. party No. 1. but however then he went to possess the property covered under the sale deed, he was prevented therefrom by opp. parties 2 and 3 and on the petitioner's approaching opp. party No. 1, he pleaded his inability and hence the petitioner filed the suit for declaration of his half share in the suit properties. ( 3 ) WRITTEN statement was filed by the opp. party No. 1 stating that the sale in favour of the petitioner was a benami transaction and the properties are undivided joint family properties of opp. parties 1. 2 and 3 and since the opp. parties 2 and 3 created disturbance in the possession of opp. party No. 1, he, on the advice of the petitioner and his brothers, executed and registered a nominal and sham sale deeds in favour of the petitioner and his brothers without passing of any consideration and taking advantage of the same, the petitioner has filed the suit. Similar suits have also been filed by the brothers of the petitioner. Opp. Parties 2 and 3 in a separate written statement also supported the case of the opp. party No. 1. ( 4 ) ON consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge held that even though the suit was for partition, yet from the nature of the pleading it appears that the main question to be decided was whether any title was conveyed to the petitioner on the sale deed executed by the opp. ( 4 ) ON consideration of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge held that even though the suit was for partition, yet from the nature of the pleading it appears that the main question to be decided was whether any title was conveyed to the petitioner on the sale deed executed by the opp. party No. 1 or that the transaction was merely a benami one. The court below held that even though the question of partition was within the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities, yet they had no jurisdiction to decide whether the sale deed is genuine or not and hence rejected the petition filed by the petitioner. ( 5 ) THE approach of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge is justified. As has been rightly observed by him, the main question being whether any title passed to the petitioner on the sale deed or that the document is merely a benami one, the question of abatement would depend upon as to whether the consolidation authorities have the jurisdiction to cancel the document or not. It is well known that the consolidation authorities do not have the power to set aside a document unless it is a one which is in excess of the authority of the persons executing it. In other words, the consolidation authorities have jurisdiction only to decide upon a void document but not upon a viodable one. The difference was pointed out by the Supreme Court in AIR 1973 SC 2451 (Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh) wherein it was held that there is distinction between the 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 adjudication on the effect of such 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. 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 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. But where there is a document the legal effect of which can only be taken away by setting it aside or by its cancellation, it can be said 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. The question whether a particular document is a benami transaction or not essentially involved the determination regarding the genuineness of the document. The sale deed in the present case is not a void document being not in excess of the authority of the vendor but is at best a voidable one and hence the determination of such question would be necessarily outside the purview of the consolidation operation. The question can only be decided by a competent civil court. Issue No. 3 is thus intrinsically connected with other issues and it cannot be disposed of preliminarily and hence the suit also would not abate on that count. ( 6 ) HAVING come to such conclusion however I am confronted with some decisions of this Court which are contrary to my view. It was held by P. K. Mohanti. J. in the case reported in (1984) 57 Cut LT 398 (Hrudananda Panda v. Dhirendra Behura alias Behera) that the consolidation authorities are competent to go into the question of benami while deciding the right or interest of one party or the other. It was observed that the decision on the question of benami is in effect and substance in respect of the declaration of the rights or interests of the parties in the land and hence all claims of ownership of land should be put forward before the consolidation authorities so that they may determine who is the true owner of the land. If a party fails to do so, he will be debarred from establishing his claim of benami in a Civil Court. The decision however failed to take notice of AIR 1973 SC 2451 (supra ). If a party fails to do so, he will be debarred from establishing his claim of benami in a Civil Court. The decision however failed to take notice of AIR 1973 SC 2451 (supra ). ( 7 ) IN another decision reported in (1984) 57 Cut LT 560 (Siba Prasad Dashsen v. Kali Charan Dash) it was also held that the question of validity of a deed of gift or of a will are matters which are incidental or are necessary for exercise of the powers vested in the consolidation authorities and hence they are competent to decide upon the same. The decision purports to rely upon AIR 1973 SC 2451 (supra ). ( 8 ) HOWEVER there are also other decisions of this Court which support the view taken by me. In (1984) 57 Cut LT 417 (Sridhar Mohanty v. Kamal Kumar Agarwalla) it has been decided, following AIR 1973 SC 2451 (supra), that the consolidation authorities have no power to cancel or set aside a document and it is the Civil Court alone which is to adjudicate upon as to whether a document is required to be set aside or not. In (1981) 51 Cut LT 61 (Gangadhar Mandal v. Shyamsundar Mandal) P. K. Mohanti, J. held, relying upon AIR 1973 SC 2451 (supra), that to avoid a sale deed a Civil Court is the only forum to be resorted to and hence the suit to set aside the same is maintainable in the Civil Court and would not abate. Again in another decision reported in (1981) 52 Cut LT 144 (Bai Bawa v. Jayakrishna Rautray) it was also decided that where the document is not void and requires a declaration as to its nature and the consequences to flow out of it the suit would not abate under the Special Statute and the Civil Court's jurisdiction to decide upon the same is not taken away. In (1984) 58 Cut LT 86 (Banambar Tripathy v. Collector of Ganjam) it was also accepted and assumed that a suit lies to set aside a document or a decree and that such a suit does not abate. It was held that the suit would not abate since the officer or authority has not been empowered under the Act to grant relief by deciding the question. It was held that the suit would not abate since the officer or authority has not been empowered under the Act to grant relief by deciding the question. ( 9 ) WHERE right, title and interest are claimed on the basis of a document and ordinarily such document would be binding on the party contesting the claim unless it is cancelled or set aside, it is clear that the consolidation authorities would not have the jurisdiction to decide upon such claim as such decision would invariably lead to a determination of the validity of the document which is plainly outside reach of those authorities. In my view, the determination is not a necessary consequence of the exercise of power by the consolidation authorities and merely incidental thereto but is intrinsically connected with the adjudication upon the binding character of the document since the right itself is claimed to flow out of it. Such an adjudication can only be made by the Civil Court. It is immaterial whether the suit is brought for cancellation of the deed or the defence in the suit raises the question since the ultimate result remains the same, namely, the declaration as to whether the deed is binding or is a sham one. ( 10 ) ORDINARILY, because of the conflicting views existing in this Court regarding abatement of a suit in which the validity of a sale deed is challenged on the plea of it being a benami transaction, I would have referred this matter for decision of a Division Bench but however since I find that the question has been decided by the Supreme Court in AIR 1973 SC 2451 (supra) clinching the issue, it is not necessary to make a reference of the case to the Division Bench. There are compelling reasons for me to hold that in the instant case the suit does not abate. ( 11 ) INDEED as has been observed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, the matter was conceded by the counsel for both the parties that issue No. 3 shall be decided along with other issues since it is a mixed question of law and fact. In that view of the matter, this civil revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed but there would be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed. 1985