JUDGMENT : Dr.A.K.RATH, J. Plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession and permanent injunction. 2. The dispute pertains to an area Ac.03.250 Sq. links appertaining to C.S. Plot Nos.495 and 498 of mouza Begana in the district of Balasore. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant no.3 got the suit land along with other lands in the court’s auction sale. Defendant no.3 sold Ac.12.61 decimals of land, which is inclusive of the suit land, in favour of the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.7.1965 for a valid consideration. Thereafter he delivered possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in possession of the said land. Taking advantage of the wrong entry in M.S. R.O.R. as well as M.S. map, the defendants disputed the plaintiff’s possession. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra. 4. Defendant no.3 was set ex parte. Defendants 1 and 2 filed joint written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Their case is that the entry made in the M.S. R.O.R. as well as M.S. map is correct. In the settlement, the names of Chemei, Sankhali and Mohani Jena were recorded as tenants in respect of the suit land. Sakhi Bewa is the wife of Mohani Jena. She has 1/3rd interest in the suit property. In the execution proceeding, she was not made a party and as such she was not bound by the decree as well as auction of the property in favour of Chintamani, defendant no.3. Sakhi Bewa sold her 1/3rd interest in the disputed plots to them by means of a registered sale deed dated 24.5.1963. Since the date of purchase, they are in possession of the suit land. Defendant no.3 in connivance with the settlement authorities recorded the land in his name. 5. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as seven issues. To prove the case, the plaintiff had examined five witnesses and on his behalf, seven documents had been exhibited. The defendants had examined three witnesses and on their behalf three documents had been exhibited. The court had exhibited the report of the Commissioner as well as the map of the Commissioner marked as Exts.I and II. To prove the case, the plaintiff had examined five witnesses and on his behalf, seven documents had been exhibited. The defendants had examined three witnesses and on their behalf three documents had been exhibited. The court had exhibited the report of the Commissioner as well as the map of the Commissioner marked as Exts.I and II. The learned trial court came to hold that Sakhi is the wife of Mohani. The fact that Sakhi is the wife of Mohani would not itself extinguish the title of the plaintiff, which was conveyed by a sale deed executed by Chintamani, until and unless it is shown that in spite of the decree, Sakhi retained the possession of her interest over the suit land till she executed sale deed in favour of the defendants. It further held that the interest of Sakhi was wiped out, since she was not in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land. Issue no.4, which pertains to accusation of title over the suit land by way of adverse possession, has been answered in negative in favour of the defendants. The suit was decreed. Against the said decree, defendant no.1 filed Title Appeal No.13/98 of 1984/87 before the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak. The learned appellate court came to hold that Mohani had 1/3rd interest over the suit property. After his death, his widow Sakhi Bewa became the owner of the land. Sakhi is a necessary party to the suit. Neither in the present suit nor in the previous execution proceeding, Sakhi is a party. The court auction sale including 1/3 interest of Sakhi could not have been legally made. She is not bound by the decree in the court auction sale. Sakhi has transferred 1/4th interest in favour of the defendants by means of a registered sale deed which is before the expiry of 12 years from the date of auction purchase of defendant no.3. The plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. Held so, it allowed the appeal. 6. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law enumerated in paragraph-7 of the appeal memo. The plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. Held so, it allowed the appeal. 6. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law enumerated in paragraph-7 of the appeal memo. The same are: “(i) Whether the findings of the learned lower appellate court that Sakhi Bewa widow of Mohani Jena had 1/3rd interest is vitiated in the absence of a finding that Mohani died after the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 came into force ? (ii) Whether the appeal abated u/s 4 of the Odisha Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1973 ?” 7. In course of hearing, the following substantial question of law was formulated. “Whether the lower appellate court is justified in ignoring the auction sale of the suit property of the year 1955 vide Ext.3, since the same was not challenged by Sakhi Bewa and has attained finality ?” 8. Heard Mr.H.K.Mund, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr.P.K.Panda, learned Advocate for the respondents. 9. Mr.Mund, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the suit schedule property was put to auction by the court in an execution proceeding. Defendant no.3 purchased the same. He alienated the land in favour of the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed and delivered possession. The settlement R.O.R. neither creates title nor extinguishes title. Sakhi Bewa has not challenged the court auction. The same has attained finality. Any alienation made by Sakhi Bewa in favour of defendant nos.1 and 2 is void. The defendants have no right, title and interest over the same. 10. Per contra, Mr.Panda, learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that the substantial question of law no. (i) does not arise for consideration in the absence of any pleading and issue with regard to the year of death of Mohani. The finding of the learned trial court that Sakhi is the widow of Mohani is essentially a finding of fact. He further contended that no notification was issued by the State of Orissa to bring the suit schedule area into purview of consolidation operation. The appellant has also not filed any notification before this Court. In the absence of any notification, the suit will not abate. He further contended that there is no pleading regarding source of title of defendant no.3. Defendant no.3 has not filed written statement. The suit is a collusive one. The appellant has also not filed any notification before this Court. In the absence of any notification, the suit will not abate. He further contended that there is no pleading regarding source of title of defendant no.3. Defendant no.3 has not filed written statement. The suit is a collusive one. Neither Mohani nor Sakhi was a party to the earlier suit. The decree and consequent court auction is not binding on Sakhi. The court auction in respect of share of Mohani is void ab initio. Defendant no.3 obtained decree by practicing fraud. The judgment and decree, which are not in consonance with statutory requirement, are void. He placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs., Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, AIR 1994 SC 853 . He further contended that the suit land was recorded in favour of Chemei, Sankhali and Mohani Jena in settlement record of right. Mohani Jena has 1/3 interest. Sakhi is the widow of Mohani. She was not a party in the execution proceeding. She was in possession of the suit land. To press her legal necessity, she alienated the land in favour of defendant nos. 1 and 2 by means of a registered sale deed and as such the defendants have right, title and interest over the suit land. 11. The rival contention made at the Bar requires consideration. Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer a decision of the apex Court in the case of State of Kerala Vrs. M.K.Kunhikannan Nambiar, AIR 1996 SC 906 . In the said report, the Apex Court held that even a void order or 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 word "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. The apex Court held : “7. The word "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. The apex Court held : “7. xxx xxx xxx An order, even if not made in good faith, is still an act capable of legal consequences. It bears no brand of invalidity upon its forehead. Unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders. This must be equally true even where the brand of invalidity is plainly visible: for there also the order can effectively be resisted in law only by obtaining the decision of the court. The necessity of recourse to the court has been pointed out repeatedly in the House of Lords and Privy Council without distinction between patent and latent defects." 12. Admittedly, the property was put to auction by the civil court in an execution proceeding. Defendant no.3 was the auction purchaser. The auction sale made by the court has not been challenged by any party to the execution proceeding nor Sakhi Bewa. The same has attained finality. Since defendant no.3 was the auction purchaser, he acquired valid title over the suit land. To press his legal necessity, he alienated the suit land along with other lands in favour of the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 10.7.1965 for a valid consideration and, thereafter delivered possession. Sakhi has no title over the same. Thus any sale deed executed by her is void. Merely because the suit property has been recorded in favour of Chemei, Sankhali and Mohani Jena in the settlement, the same will not confer title. It is trite that the settlement R.O.R. neither creates title nor extinguishes title. The learned appellate court is not justified in ignoring the auction sale of the suit property of the year 1955 which has attained finality. Further no notification issued by the competent authority under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act) was produced in the courts below or before this Court also. The suit will not abate. Further no notification issued by the competent authority under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (O.C.H. & P.F.L. Act) was produced in the courts below or before this Court also. The suit will not abate. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal is allowed, resultantly the plaintiff’s suit is decreed. No costs.