JUDGMENT J.S. Trivedi, J. - Gulzari Singh, defendant-respondent No. 1 had a money decree against Wazir, in execution of which one-fourth share in certain agricultural land was sought to be attached. Kallu appellant and Smt. Niazan, respondent No. 3 filed objection on the ground that the land sought to be attached had been transferred to them and was owned by them. The objection was dismissed. A suit for declaration was then filed that he along with Niazan was the owner of the property under the sale deed dated 21-6-1960 and as such the property was not liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree of Gulzari Singh. The suit was contested by the defendant respondent on the ground that the sale deed by Wazir and his co-sharers was executed in favour of Kallu during the continuation of the Consolidation proceedings without the permission of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and as such it was null and void. The sale deed was also challenged on the ground that it was a sham transaction. Issue No. 3 was made the preliminary issue and was to the following effect : "Was sale deed executed without obtaining permission from S.O.C. ? If so its effect ? The learned Munsif held that the effect of absence of permission prior to the execution of sale deed was that the sale deed was void. The lower appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court, hence this Second Civil Appeal by the plaintiff-appellant." 2. From the record it is clear that Wazir, Majeed and Abdul Aziz were allotted one Chak which they transferred by a registered sale deed dated 21-6-1960 to Kallu and Smt. Niazan. Sec. 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act on which reliance has been placed by the court below restricts the transfer of the part of a holding in consolidation area without the permission of Settlement Officer (Consolidation). As remarked by the Division Bench of this Court in Ram Behari Shukla v. Munna Lal Shukla, 1968 A.L.J. 223, part of holding cannot be described as entire holding. The case relied upon by the court below has been dissented by the Division Bench of this Court. The courts below, therefore, were not correct in saying that the transfer in favour of Kallu and Smt. Niazan was hit by Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. The case relied upon by the court below has been dissented by the Division Bench of this Court. The courts below, therefore, were not correct in saying that the transfer in favour of Kallu and Smt. Niazan was hit by Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the transfer being a transfer of the shares, it will be hit by Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is not disputed that the Chak belonged to Wazir, Majeed and Abdul Aziz, in which Wazir had one-fourth share and th was held by his other brothers. No specific plot or portion of the Chak was transferred to Kallu and Niazan. Kallu and Niazan's share alone was defined in the Chak that was transferred to them. The transfer, therefore, would be the transfer of one Chak by a body of co-sharers to another body of co-sharers. Under Section 3 (4-c) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, "Holding" means a parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with parcel or other tenure-holders. There can, therefore, be no restriction in transferring a holding held jointly by a number of tenure-holders to a number of transferees jointly. The position would be that the transferees would become the joint tenure-holders of the land purchased by them. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, that the transfer being to more than one tenure-holder in specific shares is hit by Section 5 (c) (ii) has no force. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has further contended that there is nothing on record to show that the transfer of the Chak was of the whole holding. "Chak" under Section 3 (1-A) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act means the parcel of land allotted to a tenure-holder on consolidation. Taking the two definitions together, a holding for purposes of this Act shall mean a parcel or parcels of land allotted to a tenure-holder singly or jointly. 5. This appeal, therefore, has to succeed on the preliminary issue decided by the courts below and I accordingly allow the appeal, but in the circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that there was a single Judge decision of this Court in favour of the respondent, costs of this appeal shall be on parties. 5. This appeal, therefore, has to succeed on the preliminary issue decided by the courts below and I accordingly allow the appeal, but in the circumstances of this case and in view of the fact that there was a single Judge decision of this Court in favour of the respondent, costs of this appeal shall be on parties. The case, however, is remanded to the courts below for deciding other issues and disposing of the suit in accordance with the observation made above. The appellant will be entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs. 300/- deposited by order of this Court dated 22nd January, 1965.