Honble DIXIT, M.—These two revision petitions have been filed under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaipur dated 13.1.2006. 2. Since the facts and the legal points involved in both the cases are similar, both the cases are being disposed of by a common order. A copy of the order may be placed on each file. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner Mohanlal is son of Basantya and non-petitioner Basanti is wife of Basantya and the relationship between the two is that of son and mother. Basantya predeceased his father Laxminarayan, who also died in 1963. After the death of Laxminarayan the share of Basantya was mutated in the name of his son Mohanlal through a mutation of succession. A suit was brought by the mother against the son of Basantya, in which two temporary injunction applications were also filed. Both these applications were rejected by the learned trial court. On first appeal however, the application was allowed in favour of Basanti against which these two revisions have been made. 4. The attention of counsel for the petitioner is that he is the recorded khatedar in the past 40 years and as such no injunction have been issued against him. The counsel for the non-petitioner counters this by assailing the very basis of this khatedari as illegal as the mutation attested in 1963 is against the law of succession and hence void. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and carefully perused the record of the case. 6. The mutation, which caused the dispute, goes to the root of the matter. After the death of Basantya he was succeeded by two first class heirs and the land had to be mutated accordingly. Any act carried out against this law is a nullity and ab initio void. It is admitted that the mother was not recorded and only the name of son was recorded. This is a travesty. A document executed in violation of law is ab initio void and a nullity in the eyes of law. Hence it is not possible for this court to recognize this piece of paper as having any force at all. It is admitted that the mother was not recorded and only the name of son was recorded. This is a travesty. A document executed in violation of law is ab initio void and a nullity in the eyes of law. Hence it is not possible for this court to recognize this piece of paper as having any force at all. 2004(8) SCC page 706 is the authoritative pronouncement of the Honble Supreme Court in such questions and it is unambiguously laid down that the only treatment such documents deserve when they come to the notice of court at any stage, or in any kind of collateral proceedings is that they should be set aside. Accordingly I set aside the mutation. Any subsequent sale by Mohanlal is also void being but by S. 52 of Transfer of Property Act and the sale is also set aside, and declared void. The sale deed need not be got expressly cancelled by a civil court as laid down in 1984 RRD page 280 by the Honble Rajasthan High Court. 7. The revision is accordingly allowed in the above terms. Pronounced in the open court.