JUDGMENT Bennett, J. - This is a second civil appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge of Gonda on the 3rd June, 1937, upholding the decree passed by the learned Munsif of Gonda on the 3rd September, 1936, decreeing in part a suit for partition. 2. The suit was brought by Hayat Khan. for partition of an under-proprietary, khata of 21.99 acres. Hayat Khan claimed a 1 anna 9 pies in this khata. The Munsif held that he had this share, but did not decree him an area to the extent claimed by him. 3. The facts of the case have not been very clearly explained in the judgments of the lower Courts. The learned Counsel for the appellants, who are Nos. 1 to 4, 6 to 16, 18 to 21, 24, 25 and 27 of the defendants, has explained them in the following way. He has first of all given the following pedigree which will help to elucidate the case. 4. On the death of Ismail Khan khata No. 2 consisting of 21'99 acres was divided equally between his two sons, that is, each had an 8 annas share. Karim Dad Khan's share was inherited by his son, Gulab Khan, and on Gulab Khan's death this 8 annas share devolved on the sons of Mendu Khan and Manohar Khan, the former obtaining a 2 annas share each and the latter, that is Wajid Ali Khan, obtaining a 4 annas share. 5. Altogether, therefore, at that time Wajid Ali Khan had an 8 annas share, while Lukman Khan and Amjad Khan had a 4 annas share each. 6. Wajid Ali Khan transferred a 3 annas 6 pies share and had consequently only a 4 annas 6 pies share left. His four sons inherited this equally on his death, that is to say their shares were 1 anna 11/2 pies each. 7. On the death of Lukman Khan his share went to his brother, Amjad Ali Khan, who thus became possessed of an 8 annas share. On the 26th July, 1901, Amjad Ali Khan transferred a one anna share to Mohammad Husain by a sale deed, Ex. 9. 8. On the 6th August, 1910, Mohammad Husain sold this one anna share to the plaintiff and a third person named Fazal Ali Khan by a sale deed Ex. 1. 9. On the 26th July, 1901, Amjad Ali Khan transferred a one anna share to Mohammad Husain by a sale deed, Ex. 9. 8. On the 6th August, 1910, Mohammad Husain sold this one anna share to the plaintiff and a third person named Fazal Ali Khan by a sale deed Ex. 1. 9. On the 19th December, 1913, Fazal Ali Khan transferred his half anna share thus obtained to the plaintiff who in this way came to hold the whole of the one anna share originally transferred by Amjad Ali Khan in 1901. 10. Amjad Ali Khan was left with a 7 annas share and this he transferred in part to his daughter Mst. Saleeman Nisan, and in part to the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, sons of Wajid Ali Khan. He transferred to the latter a 3 annas share, that is to say, each got a nine pies share in addition to the share of 1 anna 1 1/2 pies inherited by each of them from their father Wajid Ali Khan. 11. One of these four defendants, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, (defendant 4 now dead and represented in this appeal by his minor sons) transferred a nine pies share out of his 1 anna 10 1/2 pies share to the plaintiff who thus became possessed of a 1 anna 9 pies share. 12. The facts stated above are not in dispute. It appears, however, that in addition to the above transfers there were a number of other transfers of specific plots which affected the shares of certain share-holders. It is said that mutation was effected on these transfers of specific plots, that is to say, the transferees were shown as holders of these plots, but at the same time the shares of the transferors remained recorded as before, the mutation Court having no power to alter them. The result was that while certain persons continued to be recorded in the revenue papers as holding a certain share, that share was actually diminished as a result of the transfers of specific plots, that is, the share recorded was in excess of the real share. 13. The result was that while certain persons continued to be recorded in the revenue papers as holding a certain share, that share was actually diminished as a result of the transfers of specific plots, that is, the share recorded was in excess of the real share. 13. It is said in particular, that although Abdul Ghaffar Khan purported to have a 1 anna 10 1/2 pies share when he transferred a nine pies share to the plaintiff, he had not actually a 1 anna 10 1/2 pies share because his share had been reduced by various transfers. At the same time it is admitted that he still had left at least a nine pies share to transfer. 14. There is no dispute with regard to the one anna share obtained by the plaintiff from Mohammad Husain and Fazal Ali Khan in 1910 and 1913. There had been no transfers to affect this share. The dispute between the parties relates to the nine pies share sold to the plaintiff by Abdul Ghaffar Khan. 15. The contention of the appellants was that since Abdul Ghaffar Khan had not as much as a 1 anna 10 1/2 pies share when on the 11th May, 1925, he transferred a nine pies share to the plaintiff that nine pies share should not be considered to be a nine pies share of the original 16 annas, but only a nine pies share in the 1 anna 10 1/2 pies of Abdul Ghaffar Khan as diminished by the transfers referred to. That is to say it is argued that there should be a reduction in the nine pies proportionate to the reduction in the 1,0 anna 10 1/2 pies. Learned Counsel to the appellants has suggested that if this view is accepted the case should be remanded to the trial Court to ascertain what on this basis a nine pies share would amount to. 16. The same argument was put forward in the lower Courts, but did not find favour there. The Civil Judge has explained the appellants contention by a simple illustration. He takes the case of a khata of 64 acres of which 24 acres are sold. A four annas share is subsequently sold. 16. The same argument was put forward in the lower Courts, but did not find favour there. The Civil Judge has explained the appellants contention by a simple illustration. He takes the case of a khata of 64 acres of which 24 acres are sold. A four annas share is subsequently sold. According to the appellants' contention that four annas share really means a quarter of what is left in the khata after the sale of 24 acres, that is, a quarter of 40 acres and not a quarter of the original khata of 64 acres. 17. The learned Civil Judge thought that it would be quite impossible to accept the appellants' contention. He observed that "fractions relate by their very nature to some one whole entity" and that it could not be that that entity "be something for one sub-division of the khata of some co-sharers but quite another for another subdivision of other co-sharers.' If the appellants' contention were accepted, he observed, one co-sharer's sale of a four anna share would mean something and another co-sharer's sale of a four anna share would mean quite another. He agreed with the Munsif that the sale of a fractional share meant the sale of that share out of the entire khata and not out of the area remaining after transfers of specific plots. 18. Learned Counsel to the appellants concedes that there is no authority which would support a Contrary view. The suggestion made on their behalf is apparently a novel one. I can myself see no good reason for dissenting from the view taken by the lower Courts. It is obvious that complications might ensue if any other view were taken. There appears to be no serious objection to the view which has found favour with the lower Courts. As the learned Counsel for the appellants admits, while the revenue papers continue to show the original share of a transferor even after a transfer diminishing that share has taken place, they also show what transfers of specific plots have taken place. If is possible, therefore, for a would be transferee to ascertain without much difficulty what share, or at least approximately what share, remains in his transferor's hands. Actual changes of the shares resulting from a transfer of specific plots would not, I understand, be made until partition. If is possible, therefore, for a would be transferee to ascertain without much difficulty what share, or at least approximately what share, remains in his transferor's hands. Actual changes of the shares resulting from a transfer of specific plots would not, I understand, be made until partition. But all that is necessary for a would-be transferee to consider is whether his transferor has, after previous transfers of specific plots are taken into consideration, the share which he desires to purchase. 19. It appears to me that more difficulties are likely to arise from accepting the appellants' contention than from adopting the normal method of calculation based uniformly on a 16 annas unit, and I am therefore not inclined, in the absence of any authority to the contrary, to adopt the other view. I think the lower Courts decided the point rightly. I have little doubt also that the parties to the sale understood that what was being sold was a nine pies share out of the whole 16 annas unit. 20. The lower appellate Court also considered the effect of an arbitration award between certain defendants, and agreed with the trial Court also on this point. Learned Counsel for the appellants proposed to argue against the finding of the lower Courts with regard to this, but he conceded that the question was not included in any of the grounds of appeal. He referred to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 2 of the CPC under which a Court can give leave to an appellant to argue on grounds, not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, but he could not suggest any particular reason why the leave of the Court should be granted in this case, I saw no reason, therefore to grant him leave. 21. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.