JUDGMENT Ashwini Kumar, M. - This reference under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act has been made by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, in a mutation case, recommending that the Asstt. Collector's impugned order dated September 9, 1971 be vacated and the mutation application of the Revisionists be granted. An objection against the recommendation has been filed on behalf of Jahana. 2. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and seen the record of the case. Admittedly, Risal Singh, Raghubir Singh, Jai Singh and Jahana, own brothers, are the recorded tenure holders of the suit land. Jahana executed a registered sale deed dated May 20, 1975 transferring ?rd of his share in the suit land in favour of Risal Singh and Raghubir Singh. On the basis of the sale transaction, Risal Singh and Raghubir Singh, present Revisionists, sought mutation of their names. Jahana, vendor entered contest saying that the sale deed had been obtained by fraud. The trial court refused mutation on the ground that the transaction is hit by the provisions of section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 3. The learned counsel for the Revisionists admits that, through the sale deed in question, Jahana has transferred only part of his share in the suit land, and not whole share. However, he contends that since the Revisionists are already co-tenure-holders of the suit land, the transaction would be covered by the exception given in Section 168-A U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act itself. He argues that the Revisionists are not outsiders and the effect of the transaction will merely be that the share of Janaha vendor in the suit land will get decreased while the share of the Revisionists will get increased by an equal measure. This contention of the learned counsel is not convincing. In mutation proceedings, the share of the co-tenure holders are not determined. If the Revisionists have come to acquire a larger share in the suit land as a result of the transaction in question, they can get the same determined in a partition suit under the appropriate provisions of Law. The exception given in section 168-A actually relates to an out-sider whose land may be contiguous to the fragment which is sought to be transferred to him. In such a case, the transfer of even a fragment has been permitted. The exception given in section 168-A actually relates to an out-sider whose land may be contiguous to the fragment which is sought to be transferred to him. In such a case, the transfer of even a fragment has been permitted. In the present case, the Revisionists are not out-siders, and, after all, the name of Jahana vendor would still continue to be recorded over the suit land together with the names of the Revisionists and of the fourth brother named Jai Singh. The name of Jahana, vendor is not sought to be expunged completely from the suit land. 4. In view of what is said above, I am unable to agree with the learned Addl. Commissioner's recommendation. It is incorrect for him to observe that through the sale deed in question Jahana has transferred his entire share in the suit land in favour of the Revisionists and the transaction is not hit by Section 168-A. Accordingly, I discharge this Reference and hereby reject the Revision Petition of Risal Singh and Raghubir Singh. In the result the lower court's impugned order dated September 9, 1971 shall stand.