ORDER S.N. Singh, J. - This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the decisions of the Dy. DC and the SO (C). 2. The dispute is in respect of khata No. 104 which consisted of several plots. The Petitioners claimed the plots of the khata through a sale deed dated 15-11-1954 executed by Lallu Singh, Sagar Singh, Risal Singh, Ajant Singh and Durbin Singh who were some of the co-tenure holders of the disputed land. This claim of the Petitioners was opposed by Kunwarji on the ground that the sale dead not having been executed by all the co-tenure holders was void and did not confer any title on the Petitioners. The Consolidation Officer allowed the claim of the Petitioners to the extent of the share of the vendors. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Consolidation Officer an appeal was preferred by Kunwarji and this appeal was allowed and the SO (C) directed that the basic year entry should continue. This order of the SO (C) was upheld in revision by the Dy. DC. 4. Aggrieved with the orders of the Dy. DC and the SO (C) the present writ petition has been filed. The vendors of the Petitioners had 5/8 share in the disputed khata. They purported to transfer the entire khata to the Petitioners. Even if they purported to transfer all the plots of the khata under law they could not have transferred more than their share in those plots. The Consolidation Officer appears to be right when he held that the interest o the transferors passed to the transferees, the Petitioners. The SO (C) and the Dy. Director in my opinion committed an error apparent on the face of the record in holding the transfer to be invalid even qua the share of the transferors. 5. The Dy. Director in support of his view has relied on a decision of the Board of Revenue Madan Mohan v. Pormeshwar Dube 1964 RD 363. If this authority was carefully read it would show that a Full Bench decision of this Court Ram Raj Singh v. Rajendra Singh 1943 AWR 172 has been referred to in that case and distinguished. I have looked into the Full Bench decision referred to in the decision of the Board of Revenue Madan Mohan v. Parmeshwar Dube 1964 RD 363. I have looked into the Full Bench decision referred to in the decision of the Board of Revenue Madan Mohan v. Parmeshwar Dube 1964 RD 363. In my opinion this Full Bench decision of this Court has been wrongly distinguished by the Board of Revenue. In this Full Bench case Ram Raj Singh v. Rajendra Singh 1943 AWR 172 it was held that one co-sharer was entitled to transfer his own proprietary interest in the plot and that though the transfer of the specific plot owned by other co-sharers is invalid in respect of the shares of the other co-sharers it is valid qua the interest of the transferors. In view of the ratio decidendi of the Full Bench case it has to be held that the Petitioners got the interest of their vendors and their name should have been directed to be recorded over the shares of their vendors. The Consolidation Officer rightly directed the entry of their names in the records and the other two authorities the SO (C) and the Dy. Director committed an error apparent on the face of the record in refusing to record the names of the Petitioners over the shares of their vendors. 6. In the result this petition is allowed, the orders of the Dy. Director dated 10-12-1965 and that of the SO (C) dated 15-2-1965 are hereby quashed. The Petitioners are entitled to the cost of this petition.