JUDGMENT : K.S. JHAVERI, J. By way of this special appeal, the appellant originally herein defendant before the learned Single Judge has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order passed by the Board of Revenue which has confirmed the order of the appellate authority and reversed the finding given by the trial court. 2. The present appellant has filed a civil suit before the competent authority seeking relief that the agreement which was entered between the appellant-plaintiff with the original owner on 07.12.1974 and pursuant to which right has been accrued in favour of the appellant was required to be granted and the Board of Revenue has rightly dismissed the second appeal preferred by the respondent herein petitioner before the learned Single Judge and has rightly allowed the appeal by the competent appellate authority. The facts of the case are as under: “The facts on which the present dispute is centered are that respondent No. 1 Mohanlal preferred a suit before the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Bali under Section 41 and 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 for transfer of khatedari rights and for ejectment of trespasser. The case of the plaintiff, as averred in the plaint, was that through a registered sale deed dated 7.12.1974 he purchased an agricultural land bearing khasra No. 21 in village Basada, Tehsil Desuri measuring 10 Bighas from Bhagaram (respondent No. 2) and possession of the land was also acquired by him immediately. He remained with possession of the land for continuous three years but Shri Bhagaram did not proceeded for getting the mutation transferred in revenue records. In the year 1978 he was dispossessed by the defendants from the land in question, therefore, he sought a decree for ejectment and to transfer khatedari rights in his favour. The defendant petitioners submitted a written statement stating therein that through the registered sale deed dated 8.1.1979 the land in question was sold to defendant Chhogaram by Shri Bhagaram and since then they are in peaceful possession of the land. The khatedari rights too were transferred in name of Chhogaram and he paid all revenue. The parcha lagaan was also issued in the name of Chhogaram in settlement proceedings. The khatedari rights too were transferred in name of Chhogaram and he paid all revenue. The parcha lagaan was also issued in the name of Chhogaram in settlement proceedings. The defendant petitioners denied the averments made in the plaint with regard to plaintiffs possession over the land in question. On basis of pleadings the trial court framed four issues as follows:— ¼1½ vk;k d`f"k [kljk uaEcj 21 jdck 10 ch/kk tks izfroknh }kjk oknh ds gd esa rkjh[k 15-7-74 dks eqvkotk ysdj eqUrfyd dj nh o dCtk lkSia fn;k\ -----oknh ¼2½ vk;k lu~ 1978 esa izfroknhx.k ls fey dj oknh dh mDr Hkwfe ij uktk;t dCtk dj fn;k tks vHkh rd fjVus fd;s gq, gS\ ----------oknh ¼3½ vk;k oknh dks izfroknhx.k }kjk tcju csn[ky fd;s tkus ls oknh dks gtkZuk dk'r dk gqvk tks ekfQd dkuwuu gtkZuk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ -------oknh ¼4½ vk;k izfroknh ua-3 ds gd esa fd;k x;k caspku fnukad 8-1-79 tk;t o osfyM gS ,ao mlds tfj;s dCtk izfroknhx.k ua-3 dk gksus ls vc ;g okn ugh py ldrk gS\ ------izzfroknh Shri Mohanlal (plaintiff), Shri Bhagaram and Dhanraj were produced in witness box in favour of the plaintiff and their statements were recorded. On behalf of defendants statements of Balchand, Mularam and Jetharam were recorded. Devaram and Banshilal were produced as witness in rebuttal by the plaintiff. The trial court while deciding the issue No. 1 against the plaintiff held that the sale said to be made in favour of the plaintiff through the sale deed dated 7.12.1974 is void ab-initio being in violation of provisions of Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1908’). The trial court held that the sale deed was executed on 15.7.1974 but was presented and registered on 7.12.1974 i.e. after a period of more than four months, as such the registering authority in light of provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1908 was lacking jurisdiction to register the document presented before it after a period of four months from the date of its execution. Beside the above, the trial court has also not found the sale of the land to plaintiff bonafide in view of the statement given by Bhagaram (PW-2) who stated that from childhood he was in service of plaintiff Mohanlal at Mumbai, all expenses occurred in his marriage were borne by the plaintiff and then he sold the land to the plaintiff. The trial court also held that possession of the land was never with the plaintiff petitioners. The issue No. 2 and 3 were also decided against the plaintiff respondent in view of the fact that plaintiff respondent failed to prove issue No. 1. The issue No. 4 was decided by the trial court in favour of defendant petitioners. Accordingly the suit was dismissed by the judgment dated 2.4.1989. The plaintiff respondent being aggrieved by judgment dated 2.4.1989 passed by the trial court preferred an appeal under Section 223 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali. The Revenue Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 10.5.1994 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 2.4.1989 accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 2.4.1989. The revenue Appellate Authority decreed the suit preferred by the plaintiff by declaring him as khatedar of the land in question and by making an order to dispossess the defendant petitioners from possession of the land in question. The Revenue Appellate Authority while setting aside the order passed by the trial court held that transfer made under the sale deed dated 07.12.1974 could not be treated as a paper transfer and, therefore, all the rights vested with Bhagaram stood transferred to the plaintiffs. The appellate court while giving such finding did not consider the effect and impact of the provisions of Section 23 of the Act of 1908 on count of which trial court held the sale under the deed dated 07.12.1974 void ab-initio. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has merely contended that the revenue court has no jurisdiction to declare that the document is void for which he relied upon observations which is made by the competent authority to the effect, and contended that the learned Single Judge while considering the case of the respondent has wrongly misconstrued the provisions of Section 23. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has merely contended that the revenue court has no jurisdiction to declare that the document is void for which he relied upon observations which is made by the competent authority to the effect, and contended that the learned Single Judge while considering the case of the respondent has wrongly misconstrued the provisions of Section 23. 4. The learned Single Judge while considering the matter has first held that this being question of law he did not remand the matter since the original suit which was initiated was of the year 1979 therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back and in that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has proceeded only considering the same as a pure question of law. The learned Single Judge while considering the matter, has considered the judgment of State of Kerala v. MK Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (dead), (1996) 1 SCC 435 : AIR 1996 Supreme Court 906. Para 6 of the said judgment reads as under:— “It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the case. We are of the view that the order passed inter parties in C.R.P. 3440 of 1977 dated 02.11.1977, has become final, and it concludes the matter. The observations made in the proceedings, at the instance of the 1st respondent regarding the validity of the order of the Board, in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977, will not, in any way, affect and legality and validity of the proceedings declining to implead respondents Nos. 3 and 4 or the order passed in Revision therefrom — C.R.P. 3440 of 1977. It is true that the proceedings dated 28.06.1977 was observed to be void in law in C.R.P. 3696 of 1977, filed by the first respondent. In our opinion, even a void order or decision rendered between parties cannot be decision rendered between parties cannot be said to be non-existent in all cases and in all situations. Ordinarily, such an order will, in fact be effective inter parties until it is successfully avoided or challenged in higher forum. Mere use of the word “void” is not determinative of its legal impact. The work “void” has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. It only conveys the idea that the order is invalid or illegal. It can be avoided. Mere use of the word “void” is not determinative of its legal impact. The work “void” has a relative rather than an absolute meaning. It only conveys the idea that the order is invalid or illegal. It can be avoided. There are degrees of invalidity, depending upon the gravity of the infirmity, as to whether it is, fundamental or otherwise and in this case, the only complaint about the initiation of the suo motu proceedings by Board was, that it was not initiated on intimation by the State Land Board about the non-filing of the statement as required by Section 85(7) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In our opinion, this is not a case where the infirmity is fundamental. It is unnecessary to consider the matter further.” 5. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge has not considered the judgment of the Supreme Court as quoted hereinabove and thus learned Single Judge has seriously erred in not following the decision of the Supreme Court. 6. We have heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent. 7. First contention is preliminary objection which has been raised by counsel for the respondent order of 05.03.2008 which reads as under: “Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The application for bringing on record legal representatives has been filed after about one year of report about his death having been received by the Registry inasmuch as appears from the Registry's order sheet dt. 02.03.2007 that respondent no. 5 had died, and the application has been filed now in the March, 2008. With this learned counsel for the appellant submits that two of the legal representatives are already there on record, and therefore, he now prays that name of deceased be deleted. Accordingly, the name of respondent no. 5 be deleted. Amended cause title be filed. It will be open to the respondent to contend at the time of hearing as to whether the appeal survives, or not on account of deletion of respondent No. 5.” 8. While deleting the respondent No. 5, this court specifically observed as under: “Accordingly, the name of respondent no. 5 be deleted. Amended cause title be filed. It will be open to the respondent to contend at the time of hearing as to whether the appeal survives, or not on account of deletion of respondent No. 5.” 9. While deleting the respondent No. 5, this court specifically observed as under: “Accordingly, the name of respondent no. 5 be deleted. Amended cause title be filed. It will be open to the respondent to contend at the time of hearing as to whether the appeal survives, or not on account of deletion of respondent No. 5.” 9. The name of respondent be deleted and the amended cause title be filed, it will be open to the respondent to contend at the time of hearing as to whether the appeal survives, or not on account of the deletion of the respondent No. 5. 10. In our considered opinion, the preliminary objections raised by the respondent is required to be accepted, there cannot be two sets of judgment for different parties against whom the original suit was filed. In that view of the matter, the preliminary contentions deserves to be allowed. However, we have proceeded on the merits. In view of the fact that in case, the first contention is not accepted by the appellate court, there is no question of remanding the matter back to this Court, therefore, we are deciding the matter as a whole on the merits also. The contention which has been raised is devoid of any merit inasmuch as Section 23 is very clear that registration beyond four months is without jurisdiction and in that view of the matter, the registration is not valid. In that view of the matter, the interpretation put forth by counsel for the appellant that the revenue appellate authority and the learned Single Judge has declared the document void is misreading the observation of both the authorities. It is that the registration cannot be on the basis of that, the observations made by both the authorities is just and proper. More particularly, the original suit authority and the learned Single Judge were in complete agreement with the view taken. The Judgment of Kerala High Court will not apply in the facts of the case. Hence, this special appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.