JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This is plaintiff’s appeal against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of right, title and interest, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. 2. The appellant as plaintiff instituted a suit impleading respondents as defendants. The dispute pertains to a tank appertaining to C.S. Khata No.126, Plot No.642 Ac.1.28 dec. corresponding to M.S. Khata No.287, Plot No.731 Ac.1.10 dec. The case of the plaintiff is that one Bhagirathi was the common ancestor of the parties. He had two sons, namely, Shyam and Biswanath. Biswanath married twice. Plaintiff is the son of Biswanath through his first wife. Paruli, defendant no.2, is the second wife of Biswanath. Defendant nos.3 and 7 are the son and daughter of Biswanath through Paruli. In order to avoid rigors of Orissa Land Reforms Act, Biswanath and Shyam partitioned the properties by means of a registered partition deed dated 13.10.1953. But then they were in joint enjoyment of the properties. They used to alienate the property jointly, which indicates that the partition deed of the year 1953 had not been acted upon. The further claim of the plaintiff is that after his father married for the second time, the member of the family felt difficulty to stay jointly. Pursuant to the advice of the well-wishers, the properties were divided on 5.10.1968. Accordingly, unregistered plain paper document (panchayat patra) was executed between the parties. In the said panchayat patra, the entire suit tank was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. 3. Defendant no.1 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is pleaded that the plaintiff was managing the affairs of the family and looking after the litigation. Shyam put LTI and signatures on the blank papers on good faith so as to use in the court. Taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff might have created a Panchayat Patra. Shyam and Biswanath sold properties and executed deed of relinquishment. Without any prayer of cancellation of the partition deed dated 13.10.1953, the suit is not maintainable. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court has framed eight issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. On a threadbare analysis of the evidence as well as pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that the partition deed dated 13.10.1953 had been acted upon. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court has framed eight issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. On a threadbare analysis of the evidence as well as pleadings, learned trial court came to hold that the partition deed dated 13.10.1953 had been acted upon. The parties are the owners and enjoyment of their properties as per their share. The so-called Panchayat Faisala Patra dated 5.10.1968 vide Ext.1 being nullity, the plaintiff acquires no right, title and interest over the suit tank. The partition deed dated 13.10.1953 is valid and binding on the parties. Unsuccessful plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, Balasore, which was eventually dismissed. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the second appeal, appellant no.1 died, whereafter his legal representatives have been brought on record. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law enumerated in Ground Nos. B, C & F. The same are: “B. Whether the learned courts below have justified to ignore the evidentiary value of Ext.1 for want of registration? C. Whether the findings of the learned courts below that in absence of the deed of cancellation of Ext. A the subsequent Panchayat Phaisala vide Ext.1 is not valid in the eye of law? F. Whether the learned courts below have justified in not considering Ext.1 even for collateral purposes assuming the same is compulsorily registerable ?” 6. Heard Mr. S.K. Samantaray, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents. 7. Mr. S.K. Samantaray, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that all the joint family properties are not the subject-matter of partition as per partition deed dated 13.10.1953, Ext.A. The partition took place in the year 1968. Both the brothers had jointly claimed the ownership over the suit land as would be evident from Ext.2, certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in Appeal Case No.111 of 1966. M.S R.O.R was published in the year 1968 in the name of both the brothers. Both the brothers have paid the rent jointly till 1968. OLR Cases had been filed by the tenants against defendant no.1 after the year 1968 which is evident that after the year 1968 the actual partition had taken place. M.S R.O.R was published in the year 1968 in the name of both the brothers. Both the brothers have paid the rent jointly till 1968. OLR Cases had been filed by the tenants against defendant no.1 after the year 1968 which is evident that after the year 1968 the actual partition had taken place. Both the brothers jointly executed the sale deeds in the year 1965 even though said properties were allotted to Bishwanath and Shyamsundar separately. Ext.9 certified copy of Misc. Case No.278 of 1982 granted by the Tahasildar, Soro shows payment of rent to the respondent in respect of the property which fell to his share in view of the partition effected through Panchayat Faislanama. In TSC No.293 of 1956 Shyamsundar admitted the existence of joint family. In rent Suit Case No.103/63/64 both Shyamsundar and Bishwanath had jointly claimed bhag dues. The registered sale deed-Ext.12 was executed by Harekrishna Panda in favour of the father of the parties in the year 1968. The rent schedule-Ext.14 was issued in respect of Plot No.1953 in favour of the appellant even though the said land was allotted in favour of the respondent in the year 1953. The said documents were produced before the learned courts below prima facie prove that there was no partition before 1968. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that there was previous partition. He further submitted that the registered sale deeds of the year 1958 marked as Ext.D and E were executed inter se between the parties. The sale deeds had not been acted upon. Subsequent to the execution of Ext.A, the parties had executed documents marked as Ext.H, J, K, L, K in order to show that the deed of 1953 was not a sham transaction, even though the parties are well aware of the fact that they were in joint possession of the joint family property and the same had never been partitioned between them. He further submitted that the suit land is a tank and the same is not partiable in nature. If the same is partitioned, then the same would be allotted entirely to one of the co-sharer and in exchange of the same the similar valuable properties should have been allotted to the other co-sharer in order to maintain equity between the parties. If the same is partitioned, then the same would be allotted entirely to one of the co-sharer and in exchange of the same the similar valuable properties should have been allotted to the other co-sharer in order to maintain equity between the parties. The tank in question has been divided mentioning the shares of the parties, even though such a nature of the land is not partiable. He further submitted that Ext.1 the Panchayat Faislanama is the memorandum of family settlement. The said document does not require registration under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act. He relied on the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi, etc. v. Narsingsa Bhaskarsa Kabadi, etc., AIR 1961 SC 1077 and Kalyani (dead) by L.Rs v. Narayanan and others, AIR 1980 SC 1173 and this Court in the case of Giridhari Rautray and Prahallad Rautray v. Sarat Chandra Rautray and Netamani and 3 others, 1996 (2) OLR 649. 8. Per contra Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents, submitted that there was a partition between the parties. The same was reduced into writing and registered on 13.10.1953. The parties are in possession of their respective shares long since. In the said partition deed, the plaintiff got a portion of the suit schedule property. In the absence of registration, the document is not admissible. As the document is unstamped, the learned trial court directed impounding it. But then the plaintiff did not comply the order. The plaintiff has failed to prove the Panchayat Patra. The plaintiff has also not prayed for setting aside the registered partition deed dated 13.10.1953. The same is a valid document. The parties have admitted to have sold properties according to their shares. The plaintiff himself is the attesting witness in the deed of relinquishment, Ext.B and C. Exts.D and E, i.e., sale deeds show that members of the family have sold their properties allotted to them by means of the partition deed vide Ext.A. The plaintiff is an attesting witness to Exts.D and E. He further submitted that while plaintiff admits execution of Ext.A, he claims that it was brought into existence only to avoid the OLR Act i.e. to defraud the ceiling laws. The plaintiff cannot take advantage of fraud. Further, the plea is not sustainable, since Ext.A was executed in 1953, whereas the OLR Act came in the year 1960. The plaintiff cannot take advantage of fraud. Further, the plea is not sustainable, since Ext.A was executed in 1953, whereas the OLR Act came in the year 1960. He relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of C. Abdul Shukoor Saheb v. Arji Papa Rao (deceased), AIR 1963 SC 1150 and of this Court in the case of Smt. Champakalata Mohanty v. Atmaranjan Mohapatra and others, 2011 (Supp.2) OLR 505, Braja Sundar Nanda v. Pravabati Kar and others, 2013 (2) OLR 651 , Smt. Pakini @ Dalimba Naik and others v. Gajendra Patel (dead), Akshya Kumar Patel and others, 2011 (1) OLR 1035 . 9. In Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi (supra), the apex Court held that it is always open to the members of a joint Hindu family to divide some properties of the family and to keep the remaining undivided. If thereafter the assets of the family were divided and that division was accepted by the parties, the properties reduced by the parties to their possession must be deemed to be of the individual ownership of the parties to whom they were allotted, and the remaining properties as of their tenancy-in-common. 10. In Kalyani (supra), the apex Court held that in Hindu law qua joint family property the word 'partition' is understood in a special sense. If severance of joint status is brought about by a deed, a writing or an unequivocal declaration of intention to bring about such disruption, qua the joint family, it constitutes partition. To constitute a partition all that is necessary is a definite and unequivocal indication of intention by a member of a joint family to separate himself from the family. What form such intimation, indication or representation of such interest should take would depend upon the circumstances of each case. A further requirement is that this unequivocal indication of intention to separate must be to the knowledge of the persons affected by such declaration. The intention to separate may be manifested in diverse ways. It may be by notice or by filing a suit. Undoubtedly, indication or intimation must be to members of the joint family likely to be affected by such a declaration. 11. In Giridhari Rautray (supra), this Court held that the unregistered partition deed can be used for collateral purpose for proving the severance of joint family status. 12. It may be by notice or by filing a suit. Undoubtedly, indication or intimation must be to members of the joint family likely to be affected by such a declaration. 11. In Giridhari Rautray (supra), this Court held that the unregistered partition deed can be used for collateral purpose for proving the severance of joint family status. 12. On the anvil of the decisions cited supra, the instant appeal may be examined. Assertion of the plaintiff is that the registered partition deed dated 13.10.1953, Ext.A has not been acted upon. Thereafter on 5.10.1968 the properties were partitioned by means of an unregistered partition deed, Ext.1. The question does arise as to whether the suit is maintainable without prayer to set aside Ext.A ? 13. In State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (dead) and others, AIR 1996 SC 906 , the apex Court held as follows: “…. In our opinion, 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 and in this case, the only complaint about the initiation of the suo moto 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. 7. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition, (Reissue) Volume 1(1) in paragraph 26, page 31, it is stated, thus:- "If an act or decision, or an order or other instrument is invalid, it should, in principle, be null and void for all purposes; and it has been said that there are no degrees of nullity. 7. In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition, (Reissue) Volume 1(1) in paragraph 26, page 31, it is stated, thus:- "If an act or decision, or an order or other instrument is invalid, it should, in principle, be null and void for all purposes; and it has been said that there are no degrees of nullity. Even though such an act is wrong and lacking in jurisdiction, however, it subsists and remains fully effective unless and until it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. Until its validity is challenged, its legality is preserved." 14. Thus the inescapable conclusion is that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of any prayer to set aside the registered partition deed dated 13.10.1953, Ext.A. 15. In M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited v. Behari Lal Kohli, AIR 1989 SC 1806 , the apex Court held that if a document was inadmissible for non-registration, all its terms were inadmissible. 16. This Court in Dandapani Sahu v. Kshetra Sahu and others, AIR 1965 Ori 37 held that there is no dispute over the proposition that the unregistered partition deed can be used as evidence to show severance of joint status and it is inadmissible to prove the actual allotment of specific properties to the different shares. The question arose for consideration is whether the statement in the unregistered partition deed that there was a partition by metes and bounds amongst the members of the joint family is admissible in evidence. It was held that such a statement appears to be clearly hit by Sec. 49(c) of the Act. Partition is a "transaction" which affects the immoveable property comprised in the partition deed as what was a joint ownership is converted into separate ownership of the different members in specific shares. Such a statement in the unregistered partition deed is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. 17. The Orissa Land Reforms Act was enacted in the year 1960. Registered partition deed was effected in the year 1953. Thus the assertion of the plaintiff that in order to extricate from the clauses of OLR Act, registered partition deed was made on 13.10.1953 is difficult to fathom. 18. Both the courts, on an anatomy of pleading and evidence on record, came to hold that the registered partition deed had been acted upon. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. 18. Both the courts, on an anatomy of pleading and evidence on record, came to hold that the registered partition deed had been acted upon. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. 19. In the wake of the aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.