JUDGMENT

SAIKIA, J.— This appeal is from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated October 27, 1980 in Second Appeal No. 567 of 1973 allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit of respondent 1 for specific performance of contract dated April 5, 1966, wherein it was stipulated that defendant 1 (respondent 2) had executed a fictitious sale deed dated September 2, 1966 for Rs 1000 in favour of defendant 2 Kalawati, in respect of half of the suit chak and another sale deed dated December 21, 1966 for Rs 2000 in favour of defendant 3 Mithlesh Kumari. Accordingly the plaintiff (respondent 1) prayed for directing the defendants 2 and 3 (appellants herein) to execute the required sale deed in case it was not possible for the court to get it executed by defendant 1.

2. Respondent 1 Fateh Bahadur sued respondent 2 Jang Bahadur and the appellants in O.S. No. 278 of 1970, for specific performance of his contract whereunder respondent 2 Jang Bahadur had agreed to sell his Chak No. 249 admeasuring 10 bighas, 12 biswas and 10 biswansis to respondent 1 for Rs 5000 out of which Rs 4000 were paid and the balance Rs 1000 to be paid within 5 years where after respondent 2 Jang Bahadur was to execute a sale deed in favour of respondent 1 Fateh Bahadur. The Court of Munsif, Fatehpur decreed the suit only for recovery of Rs 4850 plus pendente lite and future interest on Rs 4000. Fateh Bahadurs appeal there from having been dismissed by the Civil Judge he preferred Second Appeal No. 567 of 1973 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, contending that the transfers in favour of defendants 2 and 3, the appellants herein, by Jang Bahadur were in contravention of the provisions of Section 168-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951) hereinafter referred to as the Act, and thus were void and that the view taken by the lower court that the title of Jang Bahadur came to an end since void transfers were made in favour of appellants Kalawati and Mithlesh Kumari, and thus, Jang Bahadur was no longer the holder of any title which could be conveyed to Fateh Bahadur was erroneous in law. Reliance was placed on a decision of the High Court in Parmanand v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad{1966 All LJ 963}. The defendants 2 and 3 who are appellants herein, contended that the two transfers made by Jang Bahadur in their favour were not hit by the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act inasmuch as the transfers were of a portion of the shares of Jang Bahadur in the plot in dispute. It was urged that for a transfer being hit by provisions of Section 168-A of the Act the same should be in respect of a specific piece of land and not a share in a holding. Reliance was placed on a decision of the same High Court in Bibhuti v. Kashi Ram{1977 AWC 491}.

3. It was not disputed that the area of land transferred under the two sale deeds in favour of appellants Kalawati and Mithlesh Kumari amounted to fragments under the Act. The High Court considered the question as to whether a transfer which had been made not of the entire share of a tenure-holder in a holding but of a fragment would be hit by the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act and took the view that the two transfers made in favour of Kalawati and Mithlesh Kumari were clearly hit by the provisions of Section 168-A of the Act in view of the provisions of sub-clause (2) of that section and that the benefit of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act could be availed by Kalawati and Mithlesh Kumari only if the sale deeds executed in their favour could be looked into and as those sale deeds were void in the eye of law it would be presumed as if no legal transfer took place in their favour and there being no legal transfer no question of applicability of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act arose. As Jang Bahadur executed the agreement of sale in favour of Fateh Bahadur and as the sale deeds in favour of Kalawati and Mithlesh Kumari were held to have been void, Fateh B