JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, M. - This is a reference made by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Varanasi Division, for setting aside the orders of the trial court and recommending that the names of the purchasers of the property be entered in the revenue record. An objection was filed against the recommendation saying that regular civil suits for cancellation of the disputed sale deed and the cancellation of the Sanad were pending before the competent Courts. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 3. A copy of the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jaunpur, exists on the record who has held that the transferee had acted on the representation of the transferor that he was a Bhumidhar of the land and that the same was mentioned in the body of the impugned sale deed. The learned Additional District Judge gave the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act to the transferees. A second appeal was filed before the Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed summarily. Thus the orders of the Addl. District Judge stand even though as made out in the latest application dated March 8, 1978 that a review application has been filed. In any event if the orders of the Addl. District Judge are set aside in review by the Hon'ble High Court then they will surely be implemented. But this can be no justification for withholding the mutation of the transferees any longer. 4. Agreeing, therefore, with the recommendation of the Addl. Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision,set aside the orders of the trial court and order that the names of the transferees be mutated in the revenue record.