JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against Judgment and decree of Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division dated March 18, 1976 allowing the appeal, setting aside the Judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's suit against Judgment and decree dated November 30, 1972 passed by Revenue Officer/Assistant Collector Ist Class, Bikapur, district Faizabad in a case under Section 229-B/209 of Act I of 1951 decreeing the plaintiff's suit. 2. Mastram, plaintiff had filed the suit with the allegation that Bhawani Pher, defendant No. 3 was Sirdar of the land in suit after depositing 20 times land revenue, he because Bhumidhar and executed a registered sale-deed in his favour and in favour of Sri Ram on October 7, 1967 and their names were mutated but in a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. the land was released in favour of respondent No. 1 hence the suit for declaration and possession. 3. Defendant-respondent No. 1, had contested the suit alleging that Bhawani Pher was Sirdar of the land in suit who had taken a loan of Rs. 1500/- from him and on August 3, 1967 had executed an agreement in his favour and had put him in possession, since then he was in possession. 4. The first appellate court held that after executing the agreement in favour of defendant N. 1 and transferring possession the rights of Bhawani Pher had extinguished under Section 190(c.c.) of Act I of 1951 and no right remained in him to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the agreement to sell alleged to be executed by Bhawani Pher was not a sale under Sec. 54 of Transfer of Property Act and unless his rights were extinguished under Sections 166 to 168 of Act I of 1951 his rights remained intact and were not extinguished under Section 190(c.c.) of Act I of 1951 which cannot be read in exclusion to Sections 168 to 168 of the Act. Reliance was placed on (1) 1966 R.D. page 77; (2) 1975 A.W.C. page 147 and (3) 1976 R.D. page 225. Reliance was placed on (1) 1966 R.D. page 77; (2) 1975 A.W.C. page 147 and (3) 1976 R.D. page 225. Secondly that if the agreement to sell is taken to be a sale the agreement is not admissible in evidence as it was of more than Rs. 100/- and the document was not registered as required by Section 17 of the Registration Act, therefore, was not admissible in evidence as provided by Section 49 of the Registration Act and it was also not admissible in view of the provisions of schedule I-B, S1 5(c) of Stamp Act read with Section 35 and 16 of that Act. It was also argued that it was not pleaded by the defendant about extinction of the rights of Bhawani Pher under Section 190(cc) of Act I of 1951, therefore, the first appellate court had no right to cook a third case. Reliance was placed on (4) 1953 S.C. page 235 and 196. 7. It was argued in reply that it was pleaded per paragraphs 14 and 18 of the written statement that Bhawani Pher had no right to transfer and his rights had extinguished; that as Bhawani Pher had executed a document and had transferred the possession, therefore his rights extinguished under Section 190(cc). Reliance was placed on (5) 1977 R.D. page 46. It was further argued that once that document for agreement was admitted in evidence application of bar of admissibility provided by the above referred sections of the Registration Act or Stamp Act will not apply. Reliance has been placed on (6) 1961 S.C. page 1655 and (7) 1956 S.C. page 12 and it was further argued that in view of provisions of Section 153(1)(2) and Section 167(1) and Section 190(cc) the rights of Bhawani Pher had extinguished, therefore, the first appellate court came to a correct finding. Reliance has been placed on (8) 1971 R.D. page 465, (9) 1967 R.D. page 288, (10) 1968 R.D. page 47. 8. At first I want to deal with the question whether the agreement dated August 3, 1967 cannot be read into evidence due to the bar of Stamp Act or Registration Act. In my considered opinion as this document has been marked as Ext. 8. At first I want to deal with the question whether the agreement dated August 3, 1967 cannot be read into evidence due to the bar of Stamp Act or Registration Act. In my considered opinion as this document has been marked as Ext. Kha-1 and has been admitted in evidence in view of 1961 S.C. page 1955 the question of admissibility in evidence, once admitted in evidence in examination and cross-examination of parties, is not open to be reviewed or revised. Therefore, I hold that this agreement shall be read into evidence. 9. Now the question to be determined is whether by executing the document Ex. Kha. 1 dated August 3, 1967 which may be either agreement to sell or a transfer deed, the rights of Bhawani Pher were extinguished under Section 190(cc) of Act I of 1951 as held by the lower appellate court. In my considered opinion as the document is dated August 3, 1967 and is of date prior to the date of amendment of Section 167 which was substituted by Act No. 35 of 1976 which now runs as follows:- "The consequences specified in clause (a) to (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 163 shall ensue in respect of every transfer which is void by virtue of Section 166 with the substitution of references to the date of the order under sub-section (1) of Section 163 by reference to the date of such transfer." and as Section 168 was omitted by amendment No. I of 1977 which came into force on January 28, 1978 due to these amendments after these dates the consequences to be followed are given in Section 163(2) of Act I of 1951 and now only Section 190(cc) remains for extinguishment of the rights of a Sirdar from his holding on making transfer in contravention of the provisions of Act I of 1951. The position is clear that after these amendments of Section 167 and omission of Section 168 of Act I of 1951 which cannot be treated to be retrospective from the date of these amendments from the date of execution of any document after the dates of these amendments thereby transferring the Sirdari land in contravention of the provision of the Act the rights of the Sirdar shall stand extinguished and the old rulings based on the interpretation of Section 190(cc) together with Section 166 to 168 namely 1966 R.D. page 177, 1976 R.D. page 225, 1971 R.D. page 456 will cease to apply if such illegal transfer deed is executed and possession is also transferred by a Sirdar after the date of amendment of Section 167 and date of amendment for omitting Section 168 of Act of 1951. 10. In the present case the deed in question is dated August 3, 1967 which is of prior date to the dates of amendments of Section 167 and omission of Section 168 of Act I of 1951. Therefore. 1966 R.D. page 177 and 1976 R.D. page 225 are applicable and are still in force wherein it is laid down that unless action by Gaon Sabha is taken under Section 167 of Act I, 1951 and unless the Sirdar is ejected his rights will not be extinguished under Section 190(cc). Therefore as no action was taken by the Gaon Sabha against Bhawani Pher under Section 167 and Section 168 of Act I of 1951 his Sirdari rights were not extinguished under Section 190(cc) of Act I of 1951 and the finding of lower court was erroneous and is liable to be set aside that his rights were extinguished under Section 190(cc) therefore, he had no right to become Bhumidhar and to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 11. It has been held in 1976 R.D. page 225 and 1975 A.W.C. page 147 that a Sirdar can even after an execution of a transfer deed in contravention of the law can acquire Bhumidhar rights in respect of that land unless under Section 168 of Act I of 1951 the interest of Sirdar had extinguished. 11. It has been held in 1976 R.D. page 225 and 1975 A.W.C. page 147 that a Sirdar can even after an execution of a transfer deed in contravention of the law can acquire Bhumidhar rights in respect of that land unless under Section 168 of Act I of 1951 the interest of Sirdar had extinguished. Therefore, in the present case Bhawani Pher whose Sirdari rights had not extinguished under old Section 163 of Act I of 1951 he was entitled to acquire Bhumidhari rights and was entitled to transfer the land in dispute as his Sirdari rights had not extinguished under Section 190(cc) therefore, the findings of lower appellate court being erroneous without considering the effect of non-extinguishment of the rights of Bhawani Pher under old Section 168 of Act I of 1951. 12. It was argued relying on Bala Prasad v. Thakurdas, 1977 R.D. 46 that the illegal transferee was not liable to ejectment on the suit of the transfer or of his successor in interest. In my considered opinion firstly this ruling is not applicable to the present case because it has laid down only regarding transferor and not regarding his Bhumidhar transferee. With due respect I am not able to subscribe to its 2 reasoning and cannot hold that unless the Sirdari rights of the transferor are extinguished he loses the rights of filing a suit for ejectment of illegal transferee. Because if he does not lose the rights of becoming Bhumidhar and transferring his Bhumidhari rights before extinction of his Sirdari rights it cannot be held that he loses the right of filing a suit for ejectment of alleged illegal transferee. As long as his Sirdari right exists his right of filing suit also exists and he cannot be denied that right. 13. The argument that the defendant was in possession and his possession was upheld in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. therefore the plaintiff to whom possession was not transferred has got no right to sue is not correct because it is not necessary that there must be a transfer of possession also before the sale is complete. It can happen that even through a legal sale deed has been executed they can file a suit for declaration and possession as has been done in the present case. 14. It can happen that even through a legal sale deed has been executed they can file a suit for declaration and possession as has been done in the present case. 14. The first appellate court did not decide that first appeal on its merits, therefore, the appeal needs to be remanded in the interest of justice for decision on merits. 15. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed with costs and the Judgment and decree of the Ist appellate court are set aside and the first appeal is remanded to the court of learned Additional Commissioner Faizabad Division for deciding it on merits.