JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - By the present petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the orders dated 28.2.1975 and 6.8.1970 passed by the Board of Revenue and the Addl. Commissioner respectively are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari. 2. The facts of the case are few and simple. The Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were given Chak No. 497 measuring 10 bight 18 biswa and 11 biswansis. The Petitioners had 1/2 share and Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had remaining 1/2 share. The Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 executed a sale deed on 22.10.1964 in favour of one Shyam Lai, Respondent No. 6 for an area of 4 bight only and he executed another sale deed on 25.11.1964 in favor of the Petitioners for his remaining share of 1 bight 9 biswa and 5 1/2 biswansis. The mutation was not allowed in favor of Respondent No. 6. The vendors Kailash Narain and Satya Narain, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed a suit u/s 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) for division of their shares against the Petitioners. Shyam Lai, Respondent No. 6 was imp leaded as a Performa Defendant. This suit for division was contested by the Petitioners alleging that sale deed in favor of Shyam Lai, Respondent No. 6 was illegal and void and was hit by Section 168A of the Act inasmuch as the Petitioners were co-tenure holders along with Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, hence if any sale deed was to be executed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 it must have been in favor of the Petitioners only as they were holding the plot contiguous to the fragment, and the suit was not maintainable as they have already sold their shares. The sale deed being illegal the Plaintiffs were liable to adjustment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha and the State. 3. Another suit u/s 229B for declaration of bhumidhari rights was filed by the Petitioners in respect of 4 bight only sold in favor of Shyam Lai, Respondent No. 6 as the sale deed in favor of Shyam Lai Respondent No. 6 was illegal and void and the Petitioners alleged that they became bhumidhar in respect of the entire area of the Chak. - The suit was contested by Respondent Nos. - The suit was contested by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who denied the Petitioner's claim and alleged that the suit of the Petitioners was liable to be dismissed and that the suit filed for partition by them was liable to be decreed. Both the suits were Consolidated and tried together. 4. The trial court dismissed the suit for partition filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and decreed the suit of the Petitioners, whereas the Additional Commissioner allowed their appeals holding them to be entitled to partition of 4 bight area and directed the preliminary decree to be prepared by the judgment and order dated 6.8.1970 and by the judgment dated 28th February, 1975 the Board of Revenue dismissed the Petitioner's Second Appeal. Against these two orders the present petition has been filed. 5. Sri J.N. Tewari appearing for the Petitioners urged that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 having executed the sale deed dated 22.10.1964 in respect of 4 bight area in Chak No. 497 in favor of Respondent No. 6 Shyam Lai, a stranger who has no land contiguous to the area sold, and not in favor of the Petitioners, who were co-tenure holders in the same Chak and had the plot contiguous to the fragment sought to be transferred, hence in view of Section 168A read with Sections 163, 167, 189(aa) and 190(1)(cc) of the Act, they had no right left to institute the suit for partition of their shares. At the best they could remain in possession until evicted by the Gaon Sabha and the State and the suit of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was liable to be dismissed. Sri H.O.K. Srivastava appearing for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 urged that the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was maintainable and he vehemently supported the impugned orders. 6. The main point for consideration is as to whether the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for partition, when in fact they had already transferred the land in contravention of Section 168A in favor of Respondent No. 6 was maintainable. 4 and 5 was maintainable and he vehemently supported the impugned orders. 6. The main point for consideration is as to whether the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for partition, when in fact they had already transferred the land in contravention of Section 168A in favor of Respondent No. 6 was maintainable. Section 168A of the Act enacts a provision similar to the principle of presumption and with a view to prevent fragmentation of holding, it provides that if a transfer is made in respect of the fragment of holding, it must be in favour of the tenure holder who has got contiguous plot to the fragment sought to be transferred and if it is a transfer in favour of a stranger, such transfer is illegal. 7. Section 189(aa) and Section 190(1)(cc) of the Act provides that when a holding has been transferred in contravention of the provisions of the Act, as in the present case, the rights of vendor are extinguished. In the instant case as the transfer was made by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in contravention of the provisions of Section 168A hence their rights were extinguished and they have no rights to maintain a suit for partition u/s 176. 8. Section 163 of the Act, as it was on the statute book prior to its deletion by the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Ordinance No. 3 of 1981, and Section 167 of the Act provides that such a transferee as referred in Section 189(aa) and 190(1)(cc) can remain in possession till the Gaon Sabha files a suit for adjustment. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as vendors have obviously no rights left so as to file a suit for partition. Shyam Lai Respondent No. 6 was a vendee from Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In view of Latin maxim " Nemo Plus Juris Ad Alium Transferee Potest Quam Ipse Haberet ", which obviously means that the title of an assignee can be no better than that of his assignor, I am accordingly of the view that the vendee was also liable for adjustment on the suit of the Gaon Sabha. 9. It is another matter that the:Gaon Sabha or the State did not file suit for their adjustment and they derive some benefit in the meanwhile - See Jai Shanker Singh v. State of U.P., 1968 AWR 849 and Baljor v. Deputy Dy. 9. It is another matter that the:Gaon Sabha or the State did not file suit for their adjustment and they derive some benefit in the meanwhile - See Jai Shanker Singh v. State of U.P., 1968 AWR 849 and Baljor v. Deputy Dy. of Consolidation, 1968 AWR 156 . 10. In view of these discussions the orders of Respondents No. 1 and 2 are manifestly erroneous and cannot be sustained, 11. The petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 28.2.1975 passed by the Board of Revenue and the order dated 6.8.1970 passed by the Additional Commissioner are hereby quashed. It is; however, open to the State and the Gaon Sabha to file a suit for adjustment of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. Under the circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.