JUDGMENT : S.K. Mohanty, J. - Revisional order passed by Consolidation Commissioner u/s 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Acq. 1972, directing recording of land register plot No. 1442 measuring Act, 0.33 decimals in the name of opp. party No. 1 is under challenge in this proceeding. 1. Banambar and Birabar were two brothers. In a partition between them effected in the year 1959, the case plot fell in the share of Banambar. He died leaving behind his widow Basanta and minor adopted son Prakash (opp. party No. 1). In the land register prepared u/s 6(2) of the Act, Banambar and Birabar were shown as the land owners in respect of the said plot. The petitioner filed objection u/s 9(3) of the Act disputing the correctness of the entry in the land register on the ground that Basanta for self and as mother guardian of opp. party No. 1 sold the land in question in favour of the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 10-12-1979 and as such, his name should be recorded. The objection was sustained by the Consolidation Officer (vide Annexure-1) and the same was confirmed in appeal by Deputy Director, Consolidation (vide Annexure-2). The Consolidation Commissioner has by the impugned order, reversed the decisions of the Forums below. 2. The gist of the finding of the Consolidation Commissioner is that the Registered Sale Deed of 1979, by which the mother of the opp. party No. 1 had sold away minors' share in the joint property at a time when he was a minor and the mother was merely a custodian of the properties of the minor, is to be considered void ab initio and therefore it has to be construed that the opp. party No. 1 had authority to retain his right, title and interest in his share in the joint family property even beyond 1979. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the facts of the case and particularly when the petitioner had stepped into and was in possession of the plot in question, the opp. party No. 1 had his remedy in Civil Court to establish his title by setting aside the sale deed executed by his mother and the Consolidation Authorities lacked jurisdiction to entertain his claim. 4. party No. 1 had his remedy in Civil Court to establish his title by setting aside the sale deed executed by his mother and the Consolidation Authorities lacked jurisdiction to entertain his claim. 4. Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 forbids sale of immovable property of a minor by the natural guardian without previous permission of the Court. Sub-section (3) provides that any disposal of the immovable property by a natural guardian in contravention of Sub-section (2) is viodable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him. In the case at hand, admittedly the mother did not take the previous permission of the Court before selling away the interest of opp. party No. 1 who was a minor at the relevant time. The expression--"voidable at the instance of the minor" came up for interpretation by this Court in Chaniram Sahu Vs. Samaru Nag and Others, wherein it has been held : "It is not voidable in the sense that it is binding on him until set aside, but it means that although not binding on him the transfer may be ratified by the minor on attaining majority. It is open to the minor to avoid the transaction either by filing a suit to set aside the sale or by unilateral conduct. One such conduct may be to sell the very same property to another person ignoring the sale by the guardian. There may be situation in which the erstwhile minor may have to file a suit to establish his title to the property and in such a suit he has to seek the relief of setting aside the sale deed and has to pay Court fee on that basis. Such situation may arise where the minor is out of possession of the property and wants to recover possession from the purchaser.........If the minor fails to file the suit to set aside the transfer within the prescribed period his right to the property is not extinguished; the only consequence is that he is debarred from recovering possession of the property if he has been dispossessed therefrom. 5. As to the fact of alienation made in excess of the power, and adjudication on this point by the Consolidation Authorities, the Apex Court in Gorakh Nath Dube Vs. 5. As to the fact of alienation made in excess of the power, and adjudication on this point by the Consolidation Authorities, the Apex Court in Gorakh Nath Dube Vs. Hari Narain Singh and Others, have held : 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 the 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 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. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in the case of R.B. Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and Others, wherein it is held that alienation by the father through a transaction of sale being voidable, the minors could not have agitated this question before the Consolidation Authority, who was not competent to decide this question even if it could have been raised before it within the period of Limitation Act prescribed under Article 60 of the Limitation Act and the minors are bound to take recourse to a Civil Suit. This decision was rendered by H.L. Agrawal, Judge of the Patna High Court as he then was. But while acting as Chief Justice of this Court, he has taken a different view in Prasanna Kumar Pradhan v. Gopal Chandra Sahoo and Ors. in 1980 O.J.C. 1035 dated 1-9-1987, as stated in Chaniram Sahu (supra). 7. In the case at hand, the sale was effected by the mother as natural guardian in the year 1979 without obtaining previous permission of the Court. According to the ratio in Chaniram's case (supra), it was open to opp. party No. 1 to ratify the transaction or to avoid the same either by filing a suit to set aside the sale or by unilateral conduct. As revealed from the record, opp. According to the ratio in Chaniram's case (supra), it was open to opp. party No. 1 to ratify the transaction or to avoid the same either by filing a suit to set aside the sale or by unilateral conduct. As revealed from the record, opp. party No. 1 attained majority in 1984 but before that in 1983 he through his paternal uncle Birabar filed revision before the Commissioner, Consolidation attacking the transaction of sale by his mother. This revision was disposed of in 1987 by which time opp. party No. 1 had already attained majority. This is a conduct on the part of the minor avoiding the transaction. 8. To meet the above situation, the learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the observation of the Deputy Director, Consolidation to the effect that possession of the petitioner has been found out in course of local enquiry by the Amin at the stage of preparation of land register, and submitted that since the petitioner as vendee had stepped into possession and was possessing the land in question, the only mode by which the minor could avoid the transaction was by instituting a Civil Suit for setting aside the same after attaining majority within the prescribed period. 9. The authorities under the Act are vested with power to enquire into the questions of title and interest. Therefore, unless one of the parties in a proceeding under the Act claims title to the land by prescription and in cases where the claim of possession falls short of the requisite period for acquisition of title, it will be a futile exercise to enquiry into the question of possession, because a finding on the point will not be relevant. In the case at hand there was no such claim by the petitioner and the period of possession also falls short. Therefore even if it is held that the petitioner stepped into and was in possession of the case plot subsequent to the sale deed in his favour, the finding can be of no avail to him and no recording can be made in his favour on that basis. 10. In ultimate analysis it is found that interest of opp. party No. 1 in the case plot conveyed under the sale deed has legally been avoided by the minor. 10. In ultimate analysis it is found that interest of opp. party No. 1 in the case plot conveyed under the sale deed has legally been avoided by the minor. It may however be noted here that only the interest of the widow in the case plot stood validly transferred to the petitioner under the sale deed in question. This aspect of the case seems to have been overlooked by the learned Commissioner, Consolidation. His order is accordingly modified and the writ application is disposed of with this modification. There shall be no order as to costs. D.P. Mahapatra, J. I agree.