JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated June 19, 1975 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi allowing appeal No. 516 of 1971/Lalitpur decreeing plaintiff's suit by setting aside judgment and decree dated July 26, 1971 passed by Judicial Officer (Revenue) Jhansi, in a case under Section 209 of Act I of 1951, dismissing plaintiff's suit. 2. The suit was filed by Lakhan Singh under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. I of 1951 on June 27, 1970 in respect of plot No. 371 area 3.24 acres situated in village Siron Kalan Pargana Bansi Tehsil Lalitpur district Jhansi. The plaintiff's case is that defendant Bhaiya Lal and Balua were Bhumidhars of the land in suit and in August 1966 defendant No. 5 Balua was minor aged 17 years. That on August 29, 1968 defendant No. 4 Bhaiya Lal and Smt. Ram Bahu mother and natural guardian of defendant No. 5 Balua executed a registered sale deed of the land in suit in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 Hazrat Singh in lieu of Rs. 300/- and delivered possession to the vendees and since then the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 are Bhumidhars in possession. That the plaintiff's mutation application was dismissed on February 19, 1970. The plaintiff perused the Lekhpal records and came to know that defendant Nos. 4 and 5 had executed a fictitious sale-deed of the land in suit in favour of defendant No. 1 and had got his name mutated. That the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 had already purchased the land in suit therefore defendant No. 1 did not get any rights. That name of defendant I has been recorded therefore, plaintiff has filed this suit under Section 209 Z.A. and L.R. Act against him. The plaintiff sought a declaration in his favour and in favour of defendant No. 6 and also sought a decree for Lekhpal against defendant No. 1. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 in which he denied the execution of any sale-deed on August 29, 1967 by defendant No. 4 and Rani Bahu in favour of plaintiff and defendant No. 6. It was also alleged that Smt. Rani Bahu and no right to execute the sale deed of minor's property without the permission of the District Judge and the said sale deed is ineffective. It was also alleged that Smt. Rani Bahu and no right to execute the sale deed of minor's property without the permission of the District Judge and the said sale deed is ineffective. That the plaintiff obtained the sale-deed by fraud. That the contesting defendant had obtained registered sale deed on August 26, 1968 from defendants No. 4 and5 he is Bhumidhar in possession. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It has been argued that the lower appellate court did not consider the effect of Section 154 of Act I of 1951 as the plaintiff and defendant No. 6 had about 24 acres of land at the date of alleged sale to them; that the lower appellate court did not give any finding regarding bonafide purchase by defendant No. 1 as plaintiff and defendant No. 6 were not mutated for more than 5 Years; that effect of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 49 of that Act were considered by the trial court but the lower appellate court did not upset those findings and did not appraise property evidence of ex parte and based finding only on the opinion of ex parte that Bhaiya Lal had signed the sale deed; that the sale deed on behalf of the minor without permission of the District Judge was void. 6. It has bee argued in reply that due to explanation of Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act as the defendant did not inspect 19 years record in the registration, therefore, he was rightly held not to have noted in a bonafide way; that the vendees only could challenge the payment of money which was paid before the sub-registrar; that the sale on behalf of the minor by his mother and along with his elder brother as regards minor is not void but voidable; that the sale deed was not void by Section 154 of Act I of 1951 and the plaintiff's right due to earlier sale deed to sale deed of the defendant subsisted and they were entitled to bring the suit for declaration and ejectment unless they were ejected by the suit of the Gaon Sabha. Reliance has been placed on Kripa Shankar v. D.D.C. Mirzapur 1979 R.D. 80 and 1980 A.L.J. 1037. 7. Reliance has been placed on Kripa Shankar v. D.D.C. Mirzapur 1979 R.D. 80 and 1980 A.L.J. 1037. 7. It was argued in rejoinder that the sale deed to the plaintiff due to Section 154 of Act I of 1951 was void and the suit was not maintainable. 8. Section 163 of Act I of 1951 has been omitted by Section 5 of U.P. Act No. XX of 1982 and new Sections 166 and 167 were substituted in place of old Sections by Section 6 of U.P. Act No. XX of 1982 providing every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be void and providing consequences to ensure in respect of every transfer which is void by application of Section 166 namely vesting of the subject matter of such transfer in the State from the date of the transfer free from all encumbrances etc. 9. Section 1(2) of U.P. Act No. XX of 1982 provides that Sections 2 to 7 and 12 to 14 and 27 of the Amending Act shall come into force on June 3, 1981 meaning thereby that every transfer made in contravention of the provisions of the Act shall be void and the new consequences shall ensure from June 3, 1981, i.e. these new provisions are not retrospective and the transfer made in contravention to the provisions of the Act prior to June 3, 1981, the old provision of Sections 154, 163, 166 and 167 shall be applicable. 10. In Kripashanker v. Director of Consolidation and others 1979 R.D. 80. It has been held as follows by the Hon'ble Supreme Court :- "The Legislature has made a distinction between a transfer made by a Bhumidhar in contravention of Section 154 and a transfer made by a Sirdar or Asami in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Unlike Section 166 whereunder any transfer made on behalf of a Sirdar or Asami in contravention of the provisions of Chapter VIII has been declared to be void, a transfer by a Bhumidhar in contravention of Section 154 has not been so declared. Section 163 merely indication that such contravention would entail ejectment of the transferee at the instance of the Gaon Sabha but till action is taken by the Gaon Sabha the transferee continues in enjoyment. Section 163 merely indication that such contravention would entail ejectment of the transferee at the instance of the Gaon Sabha but till action is taken by the Gaon Sabha the transferee continues in enjoyment. It seems closer that any transfer by a Bhumidhar in contravention of Section 154 is not void but voidable at the instance of the Goan Sabha only to the extent of the contravention, that is to say, only to the extent of excess over and above the prescribed limit. By parity of reasoning it can be legitimately said that in respect of the transfer as referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 154 the consequence contemplated in Section 163 should be visited on that portion of the land which is in excess of the prescribed limit. It appears clear that the object behind enacting Section 154 is to place a ceiling on land holding and it is with that object in view that a restriction of the type specified therein is placed on the right of a Bhumidhar to transfer his land by way of sale or gift and if this be the real object of the legislature then that object would be achieved if on proper interpretation it is held that the deed by which transfer is effected in contravention of Section 154 should meet the consequences under Section 163 not entirely but only to the extent of the excess over and above the prescribed limit." 11. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff alleged to have been executed by Smt. Rani Bahu as guardian of Bhiaya Lal is void but is voidable at the instance of Bhaiya Lal who could have avoided it after becoming major but he has not done so far. So the plaintiffs by the sale deed in their favour became Bhumidhars of the disputed land are entitled to the declaration sought for unless Gaon Sabha instituted a suit for their ejectment therefore, the lower appellate court after appraisal of evidence on record rightly decreed the plaintiff's suit. 12. This appeal, therefore, has got no force. It is liable to be dismissed with costs. 13. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby dismissed with costs and the judgments and decree passed by the lower appellate court are confirmed.