6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, after perusal of the impugned order and keeping in mind the entire background narrated hereinabove, this Court finds, the sole questions to be considered is as to whether the decision of the revisional authority on the basis of a finding that the relinquishment deed is invalid being voidable is justified or not? This Court finds that since the sale transaction is valid and the relinquishment deed for its voidability confer title so long as the same is not set aside by the competent Court of law. Scan of the impugned order, this Court finds the revisional authority had also framed particular issues involving the above particular questions. Deciding the first issue as to whether the sale transaction is valid and Sham, the revisional authority has categorically held that it is not conclusively assertable that the suit plot has been included in the deed and consequently, closed the above issues as such and then jumped to decide the question as to whether the present petitioner accrued right by virtue of their long possession over the disputed property and in deciding such issue came to hold that there is no required number of years of possession to get right through adverse possession by the present petitioner and consequently allowed the revision. For the involvement of an important issue, as to whether the registered deed of relinquishment is void or voidable? This Court observes that for the finding of the revisional authority that the instrument becomes voidable, it had no other alternative than to accept such instrument unless such instrument had been declared to be illegal by the Court of competency, the Act prohibits the competent authority under the Act from ignoring the voidable documents. This Court
