JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 19.9.1973. allowing the appeal of the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Judicial Officer Roorkee dated 17.5.1972. through which the suit was decreed. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the plaintiff Habib and others brought a suit under Sections 229-B/176 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 alleging that the defendants no. 1 and 2 were co-tenureholders and had half share each in the land in dispute. They had mutually partitioned the land on the spot and were in separate possession of their share. The defendant no. 2 through a registered sale deed dated 26.6.1965. transferred his half share in favour of the plaintiff and defendant no. 3 and put them into possession. The transferees applied for mutation but it was rejected on the ground that the sale was void and was hit by Section 168-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 which finding was wrong. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed to be declared co-bhumidhars along with the defendants no. 1 and 3 and made a prayer for partition of their share including that of defendant no. 3. 3. The suit was chiefly contested on the ground that the sale deed was void under Section 168-A of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and it was so held by the Board of Revenue in the mutation case. 4. The trial court rejected the defence version and decreed the suit but on appeal that judgment was reversed. The learned Addl. Commissioner arrived at the conclusion that the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue in the mutation case that the sale deed was void under Section 168-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was an important piece of evidence and, therefore, the suit could not be decreed. Feeling aggrieved against that judgment this appeal has been brought by the plaintiff. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. I have carefully gone through the original sale deed which has been filed by the plaintiffs which shows that the defendant Yamin had clearly sold his entire half share which he had in the property to the plaintiffs and defendant no. 3. There is no dispute that the defendants no. Perused the record. 6. I have carefully gone through the original sale deed which has been filed by the plaintiffs which shows that the defendant Yamin had clearly sold his entire half share which he had in the property to the plaintiffs and defendant no. 3. There is no dispute that the defendants no. 1 and 2 were co-bhumidhars and the share of each of them was half. Consequently if one of the co-tenureholders executed a sale deed of his entire share the sale deed cannot be held to be barred by Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and the transferees would be invested with the same title which the transferor had in the property. The finding of the trial court that the sale deed is valid and the plaintiffs and defendant no. 3 became-co-bhumidhars along with defendant no. 1 was absolutely correct and could not be struck down. The observations made even by the Board of Revenue in a mutation case would not operate as res judicata nor would they have any evidentiary value in a regular title suit. Mutation proceedings are summary ones and the judgments in those cases cannot operate as res judicata because the courts cannot determine the title in such matters. The observations made by the learned Additional Commissioner that the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata is, therefore, against law and cannot be sustained. The appeal was, therefore, wrongly allowed by him on inadequate ground, hence his judgment deserves to be set aside. 7. In view of the above discussion the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Commissioner are set aside and those recorded by the trial court are upheld.