JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 24-7-75 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in appeal no. 238 of 1972-73. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Megh Singh and others filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 on 18-9-71, against Deolal and others, alleging that they were co-tenure holders along with Deolal and Nathi Singh, defendants nos. 1 and 2, that defendants Deolal, Nathi Singh and Roshan Lal were sirdars of the land in dispute, that Roshan Lal, defendant no. 3, had half share and Deo lal and Nathi Singh had half share. Deo lal and Nathi Singh deposited ten times of rent and became bhumidhars, and consequently, their khatas were separated that Nathi Singh, defendant no. 2, executed a sale deed of of his share for a sum of Rs. 3000/- in favour of plaintiffs on 11-4-67 and delivered possession thereof to them, A mutation application was moved by the plaintiff but the same was rejected by the sub-Divisional Officer. Plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 in which numbers of disputed Plots were not mentioned, and as such they withdrew the suit. Nathi Singh, Defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit Deolal Defendant no. 2, contested the suit alleging that he was not a co-bhumidhar along with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had no right to institute a suit and they were in possession over the land in dispute, and the earlier suit no. 45/49 was withdrawn on 19-8-71 and the withdrawal was without permission to file a suit afresh, and that the instant suit could not be filed and it was barred by provisions contained under order 23 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., that Nathi Singh did not execute any sale deed dated 11-4-67, that Nathi was minor and he had no right to execute sale deed, that the land was a chak and as such the sale deed was void on account of fragmentation, and that no notice under Section 80 C.P.C was given to the State. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, against which an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, who allowed the appeal on 24-9-75. Against that order the learned Additional Commissioner who allowed the appeal on 24-9-75. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, against which an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, who allowed the appeal on 24-9-75. Against that order the learned Additional Commissioner who allowed the appeal on 24-9-75. Against that order of the learned Additional Commissioner, the instant second appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was barred in view of provisions contained under order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C., that the suit was barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, that the sale deed dated 11-4-67 was hit by provisions of Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the question of service of notice could be raised by the State and not by a third party, that on the basis of sale deed the plaintiffs became contenants and as such the suit was not barred by Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, and that since Nathi sold out his whole share, hence the sale deed was not hit by Section 168A of Act I of 1951. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that Nathi Singh executed a sale deed of his ? share on 11-4-67 in favour of the plaintiffs and as such the provisions contained in Section 168-A were not attracted. He was also of the view that the instant suit was not barred by provisions of order 23 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. He was also of the view that the question of service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. could be raised by the State and not by a third party. He was also of the view that Nathi Singh was a major on 11-4-67, and as such he had every right to execute the sale deed. 6. He was also of the view that Nathi Singh was a major on 11-4-67, and as such he had every right to execute the sale deed. 6. I find that since the suit was under Section 229-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 and total share of Nathi was transferred in favour of the plaintiffs, the sale deed was not hit by Section 168-A. The provision contained in Section 168-A of U.P. Act I of 1951 read as under :- "168-A - Notwithstanding the provisions of any law for the time being in force, no person shall transfer whether by sale, gift or exchange any fragment situate in a consolidated area except where the transfer is in favour of tenure holder who has a plot contiguous to the fragment or where the transfer is not in favour of any such tenure holder, the whole or so much of the plot in which the person has bhumidhari rights, which pertains to the fragment is thereby transferred. (2) The transfer of any land contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be void. (3) When a bhumidhar has made any transfer in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1). the provisions of Section 167 shall mutatis mutandis apply," Since there was no partition of holding, as such the transfer of fragment was not at all there. Hence, I am of the view that the instant sale by Nathi Singh was not hit by the provisions contained in Section 168-A of U.P. Act I of 1951. 7. So far as question regarding service of notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is concerned, this question could be raised by the State and not by a third party. The earlier suit was withdrawn as plots numbers were not mentioned therein, As such, it could not be said that the instant suit was barred by the provisions contained under order 23, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. I find that the view expressed by the learned Additional Commissioner suffers from no illegality. 8. Consequently, this second appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.