JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is a defendant's second appeal against the final decree dated October 12, 1972 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissing appeal No. 83 of 1972 confirming final decree passed by the Revenue Officer, Bulandshahr dated November 19, 1972 directing sale of the land in suit by auction in between the appellant and the respondent, Vijai Pal Singh, under Section 178 of Act I of 1951. 2. A preliminary decree was prepared on May 3, 1971. On September 8, 1971 the appellant filed application that his share was declared to be th and as in his name less than 3? acres of land exists he is a preferential heir and land should be allotted to him under Rule 159 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. Respondent Vijai Pal, also filed an affidavit that his share is less than the prescribed limit and as he has gifted his other landed property to his son, therefore, he is also preferential person like the defendant-appellant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the alleged gift deed made by Vijai Pal should not have been taken into consideration because it was made to circumvent the provisions of law and that the material date for deciding person to be entitled as a preferential person is the date of the suit and not the date of the order. Reliance has been placed on Roshan Singh v. Rajendar Kumar etc. 1976 R.D. 193. 5. It was argued in reply that the appeal is the continuation of rehearing of the suit and the subsequent events should be taken into account for determining the person to be preferential person for being entitled to the land as provided by Rule 159-B which was deleted on January 19, 1977 and was again inserted on March 8, 1978 in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. Reliance has bee placed on Ram Sahai v. Board of Revenue 1971 R.D. 341., Ram Kumar v. Board of Revenue 1973 R.D. 321. and Deep Chandra Jain v. Board of Revenue 1975 R.D. 400. 6. In Roshan Singh v. Rajendra Kumar 1976 R.D. 193. Reliance has bee placed on Ram Sahai v. Board of Revenue 1971 R.D. 341., Ram Kumar v. Board of Revenue 1973 R.D. 321. and Deep Chandra Jain v. Board of Revenue 1975 R.D. 400. 6. In Roshan Singh v. Rajendra Kumar 1976 R.D. 193. it was held that the determination of material dated of transaction would be the date of suit and not the date after which other co-tenureholder disposed of his interest other than land in dispute and that transfer during pendency of suit should not be allowed to defeat rights of other co-tenure holders. This ruling cannot be held to be good law in the presence of Ram Kumar v. Board of Revenue 1973 R.D. 321. decided by the Hon'ble High Court and 1971 R.D. 357 also decided by the Hon'ble High Court as it has been held in Deep Chand Jain v. Board of Revenue 1975 R.D. 400. that the High Court being the superior court having superintendence over all courts and authorities situate within its territorial jurisdiction, its decision is binding on all courts and tribunals situate in this State and that the Board of Revenue is one such authority and the view of the High Court will, therefore, prevail and will prevail for the whole of the period that the particular law which is up for interpretation, is in operation. 7. It has been held in Amerjet Kaur v. Pritam Singh and others A.I.R. 1974 (S.C.) 2068. that the appeal is continuation of rehearing of the suit and subsequent events which happened subsequent to the decision of the suit should be taken into consideration by an appellate court. If an event takes place subsequent to the decision by the trial court and that event has a material bearing upon any question which is up for adjudication before the appellate court, it is incumbent upon the appellate court to take that fact into consideration, if it has been otherwise brought on the record. 8. In Ram Kumar v. Board of Revenue 1973 R.D. 321. it was so held and the plaintiff who had inherited the land from his father after passing of the decree in suit, although prior to it he was a preferential person under Rule 159-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land ReformsRules was held not so entitled after inheriting land from his father. it was so held and the plaintiff who had inherited the land from his father after passing of the decree in suit, although prior to it he was a preferential person under Rule 159-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land ReformsRules was held not so entitled after inheriting land from his father. It was also held in Ram Sahai v. Board of Revenue 1971 R.D. 341. Therefore I hold that Vijai Pal who had transferred his other land in the circle by gift to his son and as he was entitled to do so there being no bar this subsequent event was rightly taken into consideration by both the courts below for holding that he and the defendant-appellant both were preferential persons under Rule 159-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. Therefore the holding was to be sold to the highest bidder amongst co-tenants entitled to preferential right to purchase as provided by Section 180 of Act I of 1951 which runs as follows:- "S. 180:-Preferential right of purchase: If two or more co-tenure-holders having an equal preferential right severally ask for leave to buy, the court shall order the sale of the same to such one of them as offers to pay the highest price above the price ascertained under Section 179." 9. The argument on behalf of the defendant-appellant that Vijai Pal's sale subsequent to the preliminary decree for circumventing the law should not be taken into account for determining preferential right to the land in dispute has got no force and this appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with costs. 10. In view of the above this second appeal is hereby dismissed with costs and the orders passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed.