JUDGMENT Jitendra Prasad, M. - The question referred to this Bench is related to a ruling given by the then Member of the Board of Revenue reported in 1983 Allahabad Vidhi Nirnaya 106 which is to the effect that where transfer is not made by the recorded tenant himself the name of the transferee cannot be mutated in his place. 2. We have heard arguments of learned counsels. 3. On the one hand it has been argued that Section 35 of the Land Revenue Act makes it obligatory for a revenue authority to the annual register if a succession or transfer appears to have taken place either on receiving a report of succession or transfer or upon facts otherwise coming to its knowledge. Therefore, where a mutation applicant is moved by a transferee claiming title from a vendor whose name has not yet been mutated but it has been brought to the knowledge of the court that the vendor had derived title in some way from the recorded tenant, the revenue authority should take cognizance of the transfer and amend the annual register accordingly. 4. On the other side, it has been argued that mutatiom can be ordered by a court only if the transferee claims title from the recorded tenant. 5. It is our considered view that the latter view is erroneous. A mutation court is bound to take cognizance of all facts relevant to a mutation report before passing orders and these facts should include determination of the title of a transferor whose name has not actually been recorded so far in revenue papers. 6. We, therefore, disagree with the view taken by the learned Member in the ruling cited above. 7. Let the file be sent back to the court of the single Member making the reference for disposal of the case in the light of the above opinion.