Short Note : 1. The plaintiff had purchased suit land from one Jawaharlal by a registered deed for a consideration of Rs. 800. In June 1966, Jawahar's son took forcible possession of the suit land. The plaintiff brought the suit on the basis of title, which was dismissed by appellate Court holding that the transfer was hit by section 165 (4) (b) or the M.P. Land Revenue Code, and therefore void under section 23 of the Contract Act. 2. Held: The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the suit land was a parcel of land separately assessed to land revenue and was therefore in itself a holding. And since the Bhumiswami had sold the entire holding, the proviso to section 165 (4) (b) would come to operate and the holding would not be invalid. What was prohibited, the counsel said, was a transfer of a part of the holding if that reduced the holding to a fragment below the prescribed limits. Evidently the argument of the counsel is sound. That is what section 165 (4) (b) literally means. A transfer of the entire holding was not prohibited though the holding was of an area less than 5 acres irrigated or 10 acres un-irrigated. The prohibition was to further fragment a holding, if it was over 5 acres irrigated and 10 acres non-irrigated to acreage below the prescribed limit, or to reduce the area of a holding already below the prescribed limit by transferring part of it. Suit decreed, Ramsingh v. Shankerlal, 1972 JLJ 275 . Malik Mohammed Hanif v. Mohammed Saleem Khan, 1972 JLJ 887 , relied on. Appeal allowed.