JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, J. - This is a reference under Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division in a mutation case. 2. The facts are briefly that Chitani and Gaya Prasad applied for mutation on the basis of a registered sale deed in respect of the land in dispute said to have beep executed by one Babu Lal S/o Sada Shiv. On a proclamation being issued, objections were filed by Indrapal and others. After hearing the parties the trial court rejected the mutation application on the ground that the holding was a joint one and without any formal partition having been affected the sale deed mentioned that the land to the extent of behalf share on the eastern side had been sold and this was illegal. 3. An appeal against this order was also, rejected by the S.D.O. concerned. 4. A revision has been recommended for acceptance by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, on the reasoning that the vendor had every right to sell his portion of the land. 5. I have gone through the file and heard arguments on both sides. 6. Learned Additional Commissioner has filed to take note of the fact that there was a dispute between the parties in respect of the actual share of the vendor over the land in dispute. A perusal of the sale deed shows that the vendor claimed half share in the land while opposite parties alleged that he had only ?rd share. 7. However, it is not necessary to go into the merits of this dispute in view of the fact that the sale-deed clearly mentions the fact that an area in the eastern portion of the land in dispute had been sold. Without a formal partition having taken place, it could not be said that an area towards east of the holding was the exclusive tenancy of the vendor. The sale-deed is, therefore, illegal and cannot be given effect to. 8. The revision application is dismissed.