Shri Jai Shukla - Advocate for the petitioners.

It appears that certain share of an undivided property was purchased by respondent no. 5 from respondent no. 9. Thereafter, the proceedings for partition were initiated by the petitioners and respondent no. 5 was not impleaded. It appears that later on, respondent no. 5 filed an application for correction of map which was allowed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Hanumana, District Rewa by order dated 27.7.2006. The said order was set aside by SDO, Tahsil Hanumana, District Rewa. However, Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa has restored back the order passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Hanumana, District Rewa and has also dismissed the review.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that it is well established principle of law that a co-sharer can alienate the property to the extent of his share only and not a specific piece of land, therefore, respondent no. 5 had at the most purchased the share of co-owner but cannot purchase specific piece of land, therefore, Additional Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa committed a material illegality by holding that partition was bad.

It is submitted that it is true that after the sale deed was execu