JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, M. - These are two connected second appeals against the judgment and decree dated March 12, 1974 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. 2. The suit had been filed by plaintiffs under Sections 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming that the defendants had got themselves wrongly entered in possession in revenue papers and seeking declaration of their own title and ejectment of defendants if found in possession. 3. The claim was challenged by defendants who alleged that they had been in possession since June 12, 1960 on which date plaintiffs had taken a loan of Rs. 1500/- from them and delivered possession a loan of the land to them as security. They themselves claimed to have acquired title under Section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 4. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial court which held that defendants had been in possession since consolidation had been de-notified in the village on March 28, 1964 and the plaintiffs had not agitated the question of possession before the consolidation authorities. They have also produced revenue receipts date April 11, 1966 & June 13, 1973 defendants were held to have acquired title to the land in suit under Section 164 of the Act. 5. The appeal has been allowed by the learned Additional Commissioner who held that it could not be proved by defendants that they had been given possession of the land in suit in lieu of the loan advanced by them. The revenue entries of possession in favour of defendants from 1373F onwards were held to be invalid as they had not been made in conformity with the rules laid down in Revenue Court Manual. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that it is not necessary for a transfer deed to be executed in order to constitute the transfer of a holding by a Bhumidhar within the meaning of Section 164 of the Act. In this context learned counsel for the respondents has filed a certified copy of a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated April 9, 1971 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1483 of 1969 to prove his contention that the transfer of a holding contemplated by Section 164 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act must essentially be through the execution of a transfer deed. Writ Petition No. 1483 of 1969 to prove his contention that the transfer of a holding contemplated by Section 164 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act must essentially be through the execution of a transfer deed. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted in full : "Sri Ram Surat Singh, appearing for the petition, contended before this court, as below they Dy. Director of Consolidation that the deed of agreement to transfer is not a transfer deed itself and cannot therefore be hit by Section 164, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act Sri Ambika Prasad appearing for the contesting respondent on the other hand tried to support the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation and urged that the agreement to transfer (combined?) with the transfer of possession to respondent No. 4, amounts to a deed of mortgage and would, therefore, be hit by Section 164 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act." Section 164 reads thus : "Any transfer of the holding or part thereof made by a bhumidhar by which possession is transferred to the transferee for the purpose of securing any payment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan, and exiting or future debt or the performance of an engagement which may given rise to a pecuniary liability shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the document of transfer or any law for the time being in force, be deemed at all times and for all purposes to be a sale to the transferee and to every such sale the provisions of Sections 164 and 168 shall apply. A bare reading of the section makes it clear that there must be first of all be a transfer of any holding. A mere agreement to transfer is not a transfer. A transfer can be made only by an appropriate document of title. The mere fact that possession was transferred to respondent No. 4 in pursuance of the agreement to transfer will not satisfy the requirements of a deed of transfer. Secondly, it is also doubtful whether the transfer of possession was to secure the payment of any loan or money advanced. In the present case obviously the transfer was made in part performance of the agreement to transfer. It was not to secure the payment of any loan or advance. Mr. Secondly, it is also doubtful whether the transfer of possession was to secure the payment of any loan or money advanced. In the present case obviously the transfer was made in part performance of the agreement to transfer. It was not to secure the payment of any loan or advance. Mr. Ambika Prasad tried to assert that the word transfer used in Section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act does not refer to a transfer deed I am not prepared to accept the contention. To interpret the word transfer used in Section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in the way sought to be interpreted by the learned counsel will lead to absurd results. Section 164 therefore is not attracted. The view taken by the Dy. Director of Consolidation is manifestly erroneous and his order cannot be sustained. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that obiter dicta of the Hon'ble High Court are not finding on this court. Several rulings have been cited by him in support of this contention. These rulings are not relevant to the point in discussion since it is clear that the Hon'ble High Court has given a specific pronouncement of law in the extract of the judgment referred to above, defining the word transfer within the meaning of Section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. This pronouncement of law is binding on this court and is accepted as such. It is therefore, held that the defendants have no case under Section 164 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act since there was no transfer deed transferring possession of the land in suit to them for the purpose of securing any money advanced to them, as loan. 8. It now remains to determine the question of possession over the land in suit which is also disputed between the parties. 9. The learned Addl. Commissioner failed to note that consolidation operation's had taken place in the village and had continued upto 1964. Defendants had claimed to be in possession since June 1960 and it should have been easy to verify from consolidation records pertaining to the period 1960 to 1964 as to whether their claim of possession from the earlier date had any basis. It would be in the interest of justice if the parties could be heard again on the subject in the light of position obtaining during consolidation. 10. It would be in the interest of justice if the parties could be heard again on the subject in the light of position obtaining during consolidation. 10. The appeal is therefore allowed and the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner set aside. The case is remanded for a fresh decision in the light of the above observations after hearing the parties. 11. This order will govern Second Appeals Nos. 284-385, Ghazipur.