C.S.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Yasin and his three brothers had been allotted a Chak in village Bangawan and another Chak in village Chaura. The plots comprised in the Chak of both the villages consisted of Bhumidhari and Sirdari holdings. Yasin wanted to transfer some plots comprised in his Chaks to his nephews and he moved an application for the grant of permission under Sec. 5 (c) (ii) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The permission was accorded. Subsequently, however, he executed four sale deeds, viz. (Exts. 13 and 4) in respect of plots situate in village Bangawan and (Ex. 2) in respect of plots situate in village Chaura in favour of persons other than in whose favour sanction had been accorded. It appears that, thereafter, he changed his mind and filed the present suit for cancellation of the sale -deeds executed in favour of vendees -defendants. He was joined in this suit by his other co -sharers. The main contention on behalf of the plaintiff was that the transfer was hit by Sec. 5 (c) (ii) of the Act inasmuch as the sale had been effected in favour of persons in whose favour permission had not been accorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, This was sought to be met by the defendants on the ground that inasmuch as the entire share of Yasin had been transferred no permission was necessary under Sec. 5 (c) (ii) of the Act.
(2.) The lower appellate Court has ultimately upheld the safe deed except in respect of the plot No. 100. The plaintiffs as such have filed the appeal against that decision and the defendants a cross -objection in respect of plot No. 100.
(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that inasmuch as a portion of plot No. 100 had not been sold all the sale -deeds were void as the entire holdings of Yasin have to be considered as one. As has been seen the holdings of Yasin fell in two villages, i.e., Bangawan and Chaura which were for the purposes of revenue acts distinct from each other. It is difficult to see how holdings belonging to an individual in two different villages can constitute a single holding. Holding has been defined under Sec. 3 (4 -C) of the Act as under: "(4 -C) - - "Holding" means a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenure -holder singly or jointly with other tenure -holders." Before parcel or parcels of land can be held to be comprised in one holding it has to be seen as to whether they are holdings under one tenure. The word 'tenure' has not been defined in the Act and as such the common meaning of the word 'tenure' has to be imported. In Webster's dictionary the following meaning to word 'tenure' is given : "The act or right of holding property". It would thus appear that the word 'tenure' means right under which a particular property or estate is held. This would indicate that the word 'tenure' signifies the particular rights, that is, Bhumidhari, Sirdari or Asami rights under which the bolding is held. Thus, if a parcel or parcels of land are held as a Sirdari while the others are held as Bhumidbari or Asami rights they would constitute separate tenure.;