JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - This Second Appeal u/s 100 of the CPC is filed by the successors of Defendant of Title Suit No. 1/252 of 1986/1984 of the Court of Addl. Munsif-cum-J.M.S.C., Puri. The said suit was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, as Plaintiffs, inter alia, praying for declaring the note of possession of Puma Chandra Panda, the original Defendant made in the R.O.R., Ext.1 published on July 8,1980 by the Assistant Consolidation Officer as wrong, illegal & consequently to delete the same & for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from coming over the suit land & creating disturbances in the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs, in the alternative if it is found that during pendency of the suit the Plaintiffs have been dispossessed from the suit land to restore their possession. 2. The suit schedule properties, as would be evident from the schedule of the plaint, appertains to Consolidation R.O.R. Plot No. 188 having an area of Ac.0.10 dec. out of Khata No. 99, corresponding to Plot No. 257, Khata No. 103, area Ac. 0.12 dec. of 1966 R.O.R. The said lands are situated in mouza Thanathana under Pipili Police Station. The lands originally admittedly belonged to the deity "Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu", Plaintiff No. 1, represented through its Marfatdar, Plaintiff No. 2. The facts of the case have been elaborately dealt with in the Judgment of the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court & as such, without going into the details, only the relevant facts, which are necessary for appreciating the inter se disputes are stated hereinbelow. According to the plaint case, "Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu" is the family deity of Plaintiff No. 2. & the suit properties stood recorded in the name of the deity represented through Plaintiff No. 2, as the sole marfatdar. It is averred that Plaintiff No. 2, being in need of money wanted to mortgage the properties & incur a loan from one Uchhab Patra. The said Uchhab Patra, however, was not a registered money lender, therefore, in good faith, he executed a nominal sale deed in the year 1970 in favour of Uchhab with an understanding that the latter would execute a deed of reconveyance after the amount is paid back. In spite of such sale deed, the possession was all along retained by the Plaintiffs. In spite of such sale deed, the possession was all along retained by the Plaintiffs. It is further averred that though the Plaintiffs repaid the loan amount to said Uchhab, & requested him, he did not execute the reconveyance deed. Consequently, the Plaintiffs took the help of village panch. As per the decision of the panch, the original Defendant Puma Chandra Panda was nominated as the mediator to take steps for execution of the reconveyance deed in favour of the Plaintiffs. The said Puma Chandra, it is alleged, in collusion with Uchhab managed to get the deed of reconveyance executed in his favour in stead of Plaintiff No. 1, the deity. On coming to know about the said fraud, the Plaintiffs brought the said fact to the notice of the villagers once again & on the intervention of the villagers, the original Defendant agreed to execute the reconveyance deed in favour of the Plaintiffs. But then, at the time of execution of the reconveyance deed, he only mentioned one plot. While the matter stood thus, the mouza in which the lands are situated came within the purview of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972, in short, "the Consolidation Act". In course of consolidation operation, the suit properties were recorded in the name of the Plaintiffs in the R.O.R. published by the consolidation authorities, however in the remarks column, the note of possession was made in favour of the original Defendant. Taking advantage of such wrong entry, the original Defendant in the year 1984 plucked coconut from the trees standing over the disputed land & threatened the Plaintiff No. 2. to dispossess him from the suit land, consequently, the suit was filed. 3. After receiving notice, Defendant appeared & filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint & took the stand that the suit was not maintainable as, the same was barred by limitation. It is also averred that Plaintiff No. 1 is a fictitious deity & Plaintiff No. 2, who was the real owner sold the lands to Uchhab in the year 1970. Uchhab transferred the said lands in favour of the Defendant in the year 1972. By virtue of the said sale deed, Defendant became the full owner of the suit properties. It is also averred that Plaintiff No. 1 is a fictitious deity & Plaintiff No. 2, who was the real owner sold the lands to Uchhab in the year 1970. Uchhab transferred the said lands in favour of the Defendant in the year 1972. By virtue of the said sale deed, Defendant became the full owner of the suit properties. It is further averred that on being approached by the villagers & the caste men, Defendant executed reconveyance deed in respect of the homestead land only in favour of Plaintiff No. 2. The story of mortgage was denied. The consolidation authorities, it is averred wrongly recorded the lands in favour of the Plaintiffs. In fact the lands should have been recorded in favour of the Defendant who was the real owner. It is further averred that the entry made in the R.O.R. by the consolidation authorities cannot be assailed in a suit that too after so many years & hence, the suit was liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed seven issues. In order to substantiate their case, the Plaintiffs got examined seven witnesses & also exhibited six documents. Defendant, on the other hand, got examined two witnesses & exhibited 11 documents. The Trial Court after discussing the evidence came to the following conclusion. (i) Plaintiff No. 1, the deity was not the real owner of the suit property, but Plaintiff No. 2, was the real owner. (ii) Since there was registered document executed by Plaintiff No. 2, alienating the property, the oral evidence which are contrary to the recitals made in the deed are not admissible. (iii) The consolidation authorities having not declared the sale deed as illegal, recording the name of the Plaintiffs as owner in consolidation R.O.R. was not justified. The Trial Court on the basis of such conclusion, dismissed the suit. Surprisingly, however, the Trial Court had not given any finding regarding possession of the parties in respect of the suit land. 5. The Judgment & decree passed in the suit were assailed by the Plaintiffs, as appellants, in Title Appeal No. 15/91 of 1988/1987, which was heard by the Learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, Puri. Surprisingly, however, the Trial Court had not given any finding regarding possession of the parties in respect of the suit land. 5. The Judgment & decree passed in the suit were assailed by the Plaintiffs, as appellants, in Title Appeal No. 15/91 of 1988/1987, which was heard by the Learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, Puri. The lower Appellate Court being the final Court of facts, once again vividly discussed the pleadings as well as the evidence & after threadbare discussion held that the settlement record of rights published in the year 1966 which was marked as Ext.6 clearly revealed that the lands stood recorded in the name of the Plaintiffs. The consolidation authorities also after observing all paraphernalia published the R.O.R. vide Ext.1 recording the lands in the name of the Plaintiffs as owners, but then, made a note of possession in respect of the original Defendant. Ext.2, the settlement parcha was also issued in favour of the Plaintiffs. The rent receipts, Exts.3 & 4 series revealed payment of rent by the Plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties. On the basis of such documents & on the basis of supporting oral evidence, the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the consolidation authorities having decided right, title & interest in favour of the Plaintiffs, there was no scope for the Trial Court to further examine the documents & came to his own conclusion. Answering the submissions made by the Defendant that by virtue of Ext. F, the order passed in the mutation case his title should be declared, the lower Appellate Court held that law being well settled that the orders passed in mutation case, neither create nor extinguish title of the true owner, & as title of the Plaintiffs had been declared by the consolidation authorities, Ext. F, the order passed by the mutation authorities was of no value. 6. So far as note of possession made in favour of the Defendant in the remarks column of R.O.R., Ext.1 is concerned, the lower Appellate Court held that note of possession simplicitor cannot confer any right, title & interest unless the Defendant puts forth a case of forcible possession for more than the stipulated period which he has not done. 6. So far as note of possession made in favour of the Defendant in the remarks column of R.O.R., Ext.1 is concerned, the lower Appellate Court held that note of possession simplicitor cannot confer any right, title & interest unless the Defendant puts forth a case of forcible possession for more than the stipulated period which he has not done. On the basis of such conclusion, the lower Appellate Court directed to delete the note of possession & observed as follows: x x x On analysis, of the above oral evidence, the possession of suit land appears more probable in favour of the Plaintiffs than the Defendant. To add to this, the title of the suit land being already determined by the consolidation Court in favour of the Plaintiffs, the same can be safely relied upon by this Court to decide the fact of possession & thus considered from whatever angle, the possession of suit land in favour of Plaintiffs appears more probable & acceptable. On the basis of such conclusion, the lower Appellate Court held that title & possession of the Plaintiffs needs to be protected by restraining the Defendant from creating disturbances in their possession. 7. Answering the plea of limitation, the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to record the note of possession in the R.O.R. prepared by them. Such noting being illegal & ab initio void, question of setting aside within time does not arise. On the basis of aforesaid conclusion, appeal was allowed & the suit was decreed. 8. While admitting the appeal, this Court directed that the appeal would be heard on the substantial questions of law framed in Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 of the Memorandum of Appeal. The said questions are as follows: (a) Whether the consolidation R.O.R. in Ext.1 is a Judgment which operates as res judicata for the purpose of deciding title on the suit land by the Civil Court? (b) Whether the lower Appellate Court committed serious error of law in holding that the recording of title made in favour of Plaintiffs in Ext.1 is valid whereas entry regarding Defendants possession on the suit land is invalid? (c) Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate question of possession, which had already been decided by the consolidation authorities? 9. In course of hearing, Mr. (c) Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate question of possession, which had already been decided by the consolidation authorities? 9. In course of hearing, Mr. Mantri, Learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant-Appellant raised a forth point, i.e., in the year 1980 the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to decide the question of right, title & interest in respect of non-consolidable lands. According to Mr. Mantri the lands in dispute being homestead lands, the R.O.R., Ext.1 published in the year 1980 should be treated as if the same has been prepared under Survey Settlement Apt. In support of such submission, Mr. Mantri relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Jadumani Biswal Vs. Narayan Chandra Biswal (deceased by L.R.) and Others, . 10.Mr.Mantri further submitted that the note of possession made by the consolidation authorities in the R.O.R., Ext.1, was in consonance with Sections 11 & 13 of the Orissa Survey Settlement Act & Rules 21 & 22 of the Orissa Survey Settlement Rules as such, the Appellate Court acted illegality in coming to the conclusion that the consolidation authorities had no right to make note of possession. The fifth point advanced by Mr. Mantri is that the R.O.R., Ext.1 having been published on 8.7.1980 & the suit challenging the said R.O.R., having been filed in the year 1984, the same was barred as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act. It is stated that the suit should have been filed within three years from the date of publication of the R.O.R. The next contention of Mr. Mantri is that the R.O.R., Ext.1 having been published by the Consolidation Officer, who had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes with regard to right, title & interest in respect of nonconsolidate land at the relevant period, the same cannot operate as res judicata. The last contention of Mr. Mantri was that the finding of possession of Learned lower Appellate Court in favour of the Plaintiffs was not based on any material evidence on record & that Learned Appellate Court acted erroneously while accepting part of the entry made in the R.O.R., Ext.1 as correct, but then discarding the finding with regard to note of possession. In short, according to Mr. Mantri the Judgment & decree passed by Learned lower Appellate Court should be set aside & the suit should be dismissed in limine. 11. In short, according to Mr. Mantri the Judgment & decree passed by Learned lower Appellate Court should be set aside & the suit should be dismissed in limine. 11. It is apt to mention here that in course of pendency of this Second Appeal the Appellant, who was the sole Defendant in the Trial Court having died, his legal heirs were substituted. Similarly Plaintiff No. 2. who was Respondent No. 2, in this appeal having died, his legal heirs were also substituted. 12. Mr. S.N. Sahu, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents repudiated each & every submission made by Mr. Mantri. According to Sri Sahu, the conclusions arrived at by the Learned lower Appellate Court being reasonable & on the basis of evidence adduced, this Court may not interfere with the finding of facts while exercising the power u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further contended that in the year 1988 the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act was amended by Orissa Act 2 of 1989 & the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities was also extended so far as non-consolidable lands were concerned. It is further submitted that in consonance with Section 7 of the Amended Act, the provisions should be deemed to be retrospective in nature & thus, the Appellate Court had not committed any error. Mr. Sahoo, however, submitted that as the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction or authority to make note of possession, such noting made in the R.O.R., Ext. 1 was ab initio void & as such, Section 59 of the Limitation Act shall not apply. It is further emphatically submitted that the lower Appellate Court had taken into consideration the inter se pleadings, discussed the evidence threadbare, referred to the relevant provisions of law & arrived at a clear finding of fact with regard to possession as well as right, title & interest. No infirmity or any error apparent on the face of the record was pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, & as such, this Court may not interfere with the decree passed & the Second Appeal may be dismissed in limine. 13. So far as the first point raised by Mr. No infirmity or any error apparent on the face of the record was pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the appellant, & as such, this Court may not interfere with the decree passed & the Second Appeal may be dismissed in limine. 13. So far as the first point raised by Mr. Mantri, i.e., in the year 1980 +he consolidation authorities licked the jurisdiction to decide questions of right, title & interest so far as non-consolidable lands are concerned, it would be apt to refer to some of the provisions of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings & Prevention of Fragmentation of I and Act, 1972, which were amended by Orissa Act 2 of 1989. By the said amendment, Clause (g) of Section 2 was substituted as follows: 2(g). "Consolidation area" means the village or villages in respect of which a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 has been issued & includes the land covered under explanation to Clause 2(f). Section 7 of the Amended Act reads as follows: 'Validation' - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Principal Act or any Judgment, decree or order of any Court or other authority, all actions, thing done or orders made in course of consolidation operation in respect of land covered by the explanation of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the principal Act during the period between the 10th day of August, 1973 & the date of commencement of this Section under the belief that the said lands formed part of the consolidation area & that the consolidation authorities had jurisdiction over such lands, shall, for all intents & purposes, be deemed to have been validly & effectively taken, done or made as the case may be, as if Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Principal Act, as amended by Section 2 of this Act were in force at all material times, when such actions were taken, things were done or orders were made & accordingly no suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, maintained or continued in any Court or before other authority on the ground that the said lands - did not form part of the consolidation area or that the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction over such lands. The language of Section 7 of the Orissa Act 2 of 1989 leaves no doubt that any action done or decision taken by the authorities in respect of lands situated in the consolidation area are deemed to have been done or taken in accordance with law. Interpreting the amended Act, this Court in the case of Nakula Charan Das v. Nishakar Behera and Ors. 1998 (I) OLR 71 held that the relevant provision having been amended with retrospective effect from 10.8.1973, the decision taken by the consolidation officer with regard to right, title, interest of lands situated 1n a village brought within the purview of the Consolidation Act should be held to be valid & legal. 14. The second contention raised by Mr. Mantri, i.e., the decision of the settlement authorities & the publication of record of rights, Ext.1 shall act as res judicata so far as consolidation proceeding is concerned, is also not legally sound. It is well settled that the settlement authorities only enquire with regard to possession so as to prepare the records & thus, the conclusions arrived at by the settlement authorities can neither create nor extinguish title. On the other hand, the author ities under the Consolidation Act are vested with the powers to decide right, title & interest in respect of parcels of land situated within the consolidation area inasmuch as the power of the civil Court to decide right, title & interest in respect of the area, which is brought within the purview of the Consolidation Act abates & the suit is held to be not maintainable, thus the conclusions arrived at by the settlement authorities cannot stand on the way or can not be treated as res. judicata so far as the proceedings initiated under the Consolidation Act or civil suit, as the case may be, in respect of the finding with regard to right, title & interest is concerned. 15. After hearing Learned Counsel, the moot substantial question which needs to be answered is as to whether the note of possession made in the R.O.Rs. published by the consolidation authorities can be set aside while recording right, title & interest in the same R.O.Rs is upheld. 15. After hearing Learned Counsel, the moot substantial question which needs to be answered is as to whether the note of possession made in the R.O.Rs. published by the consolidation authorities can be set aside while recording right, title & interest in the same R.O.Rs is upheld. The point thus remains to be considered is as to whether the authorities under the Consolidation Act have power to record forcible possession of land in favour of a person while recording right, title & interest in respect of the same lands in favour of another. Within the four corners of the Consolidation Act, no power is vested upon the authorities to make a note of possession. Mr.Mantri, however, contended that possession is a relevant consideration for determination of question of title to a property & since the authorities under the Consolidation Act are vested with the power to enquire into & determine the question of right, title & interest over the land within the notified area, they are also impliedly vested with the power to enquire into the question of possession of property & if actual physical possession of the property, though unauthorized, is found with a person & such person has not perfected his title by adverse possession, then the fact of his possession ought to find place in the record, prepared by the consolidation authorities. The said contention was considered by me with reference to different provisions of the Consolidation Act. After going through the provision, la m unable to accept the contention raised. No doubt the authorities under the Consolidation Act are vested with the power to enquire into the question of right, title & interest in respect of lands lying within the notified area, there is also no doubt that possession is an important factor in the matter of determination of title to the land & for that purpose need to be considered, In many cases, possession may form the basis of acquisition of title by a person, for example, where the person claims to have perfected his title to the property by adverse possession. But then, in a case where the possession of the property, though adverse, falls short of the requisite period for acquisition of title, the enquiry relating to possession is of no avail and it would be a futile exercise. But then, in a case where the possession of the property, though adverse, falls short of the requisite period for acquisition of title, the enquiry relating to possession is of no avail and it would be a futile exercise. If the authorities find that the person in forcible possession of the property has perfected title to it by continuing in such possession for requisite statutory period, then he is entitled to be recorded as having title to the property & then the name of the true owner is not to be recorded since he has lost title to it. On the other hand, if no claim is put forth by a person in possession to the effect that he had acquired title by adverse possession nor any hostile animus is pleaded or proved, such recording becomes unwarranted. Therefore, recording title to the property with one person & possession with another does not serve the intent & purpose of the Consolidation Act & therefore, ought not to be undertaken by the authorities under the Act. This view of mine gets fortified by the ratio laid down by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhagirathi Kar and Another Vs. Jagannath Roul and Others. The discussions made above, leads to the conclusion that the authorities under the Consolidation Act are not vested with the power to record forcible possession with a party while preparing the land record. 16. In view of the aforesaid clear position, the recordings made in the R.O.R. under Ext.1 with regard to possession do not confer any right upon the Appellant. Perusal of the Judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court reveals that it has correctly interpreted the law & the conclusions arrived at needs no interference. 17. The other contention raised by Mr.Mantri with regard to filing of the suit beyond the period of limitation, it would be prudent to refer to Section 59 of the Limitation Act, which provides that to cancel or set aside an instrument or decree or for rescission of a contract, the period of limitation is 3 years. The date from which the said time begins to run is when a person was aware about such fact. The date from which the said time begins to run is when a person was aware about such fact. Law is well settled that the provisions of Section 59 of the Limitation Act would apply only on a situation when the suit is filed for cancellation or to set aside a document, which is voidable in nature. On the other hand, if a document is ab initio void, it is to be avoided & is not required to be canceled or be set aside by filing a suit, that is because such document is nonexistent in the eye of law. See: Rankanidhi Sahu Vs. Nandakishore Sahu. The note of possession made in the R.O.R., Ext.1 is an act beyond jurisdiction & does not confer any right: upon the Appellant & is an action without jurisdiction as has been held in the case of Sundarmani Bewa and Another etc. Vs. Dasarath Parida (deceased by L.R.) and Others etc.. It would be apt to mention here that the ratio of the decision in the case of Sundarmani Bewa (supra) so far as consolidate & non-consolidable lands are concerned, were varied subsequently by this Court in the case of Nakula Gh. Das (supra). The Lower Appellate Court has discussed the said aspect in extenso & has also taken note of the fact that there is no specific pleading or evidence from the side of the Defendant to that effect. The conclusions arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court appears to be just & proper. 18. While dealing with a Second Appeal filed u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court can set aside the Judgment & decree only if it is satisfied that the decision is contrary to law or some usages having force of law or that the decision has failed to determine some material issues or if there is substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the Court or by any other law for the time being in force. In other words, this Court should not interfere with the error or defect in appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties by the Courts below even if appreciation made by the Lower Appellate Court is erroneous & another view is possible. In other words, this Court should not interfere with the error or defect in appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties by the Courts below even if appreciation made by the Lower Appellate Court is erroneous & another view is possible. This Court should be always slow to interfere with a decree unless it comes to a conclusion that substantial error or defect has been committed in the procedure. See: R. Ramachandran Ayyar Vs. Ramalingam Chettiar, . 19. After going through the entire Judgment & in view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that the lower Appellate Court has not committed any error apparent on the face of the record & has rightly arrived at the conclusions with regard to possession on the basis of evidence both oral & documentary more so because Ext.1, the recording of possession made in the R.O.R. under the Consolidation Act was neither just nor proper. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned decree. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost. Final Result : Dismissed