B. L. Yadar, J. - (1.) - This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant in a suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 25-10-1969 and for possession in respect of plot no. 246. The plaintiff-appellant has filed the suit with the allegations that he obtained a permission of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation as required by Section 5 (c) (ii) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (lor short the Act) in respect of plot no. 246 area 4 biswa 17 dhurs, which was actually sold to the defendants and the remaining two plots, namely, plot nos. 158 and 245 in respect of which permission of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation was obtained under section 5 (c) (ii) of the Act but the sale-deed was not executed by the plaintiff-appellant. In respect of the plot which was sold, the sale consideration of Rs. 4200/- was also taken back by the vendees from the Registrar. In this way it was alleged that the sale-deed was without any consideration and fraudulently, the same was obtained in respect of only one plot, where as the permission of Settlement Officer of Consolidation was obtained in respect of three plots, the sale-deed was illegal and deserves to be cancelled and the possession of the plot may by handed over to the playoff.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendant-respondents denying the plaint allegations and alleged that even in respect of plot no, 246 the sale- deed was executed by the plaintiff-appellant and the same was valid and legal and under law it was not aeeessary that in respect of all the plots in respect of which the permission was obtained, the vendors were bound to execute the sale-deed, nor vendee was found to purchase all the plots. Learned Massif by his Judgment and decree dated 3-3-1979 dismissed the suit and the first appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 8-11-1983. Against these decrees the present second appeal has been filed. . Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant urged that as the permission of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation under section 5 (c) (ii) of the Act to make the sale during continuance of consolidation operations, was obtained in respect of all the three plots, hence the sale-deeds must have also been executed in respect of all the three plots as the sale- deed was obtained by the defendants in respect of only one plot, namely, plot no. 246, consequently, such a sale-deed was illegal as the permission obtained was in respect of all the three plots and that was granted with the understanding that the consolidation scheme would not be adversely affected by granting the permission for sale and in case only one plot was sold whereas the remaining two plots were not sold, in that event consolidation scheme would certainly be adversely affected and sale-deed cannot be held to be valid. Reliance was placed on Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh v. Deen Bandhu Rai, AIR 1965 SC 484.
(3.) . Mo body has appared lor the respondents and no assistance has been obtained in reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. . The point that falls for consideration is whether the permission of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation under section 5 (c; (ii) of the Act obtained in respect of three plots can enure for the benefit of the vendees when, in fact, the sale-deed was executed only in respect of one plot, Ex. abundanti Cautela, the relevant statutory provisions of Section 3 (c) (ii) of the Act. are let out :- (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in the U. P. Zamlndari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 no tenure-holder, except with the permission in writing of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, previously obtained shall- (i) omitted, (ii) transfer by way of sale, gift or exchange his holding or any part there of in the consolidation area.;