JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a second appeal under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act filed by Town Area, Sisauli, Pargana Shikarpur, district Muzaffarnagar against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut dated 19-6-1979 reversing the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Muzaffarnagar dated 7-12-1987 through which the suit was filed by the appellant under Section 167/168-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. The plaintiff-appellant filed this suit with the allegation that defendant No. 7 Manga is a bhumidhar of plot No. 1128 having an area of 3-17-0 out of which he made a transfer of only a fragment having an area of 0-11-15 in favour of defendant No. 1 to 6 by sale deed dated 29-3-1971. The sale deed being for the fragment of the holding was void, hence the plaintiff claimed possession on the land sold to the defendants No. 1 to 6. 3. The defendants contested the suit alleging that their land is contiguous to that of the sold area, hence the sale deed was not void and no rights can be accrued to the plaintiff. 4. The suit was decreed by the trial court and the sale deed was declared to be void. On appeal, this judgment was reversed and the sale deed was held to be valid, hence this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that plot No. 1128 is a big plot and only a partion thereof has been sold to the defendant by defendant No. 7, hence the sale deed is void because this plot is situated in consolidation area. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that plot No. 1128 is located into two different khatas with different areas and the whole area of one of the two khatas has been sold to the defendant No. 1 to 6 by the defendant No. 7, hence even if the defendant do not have any land contiguous to the sold area the sale deed would remain valid and cannot be declared void. This argument finds support from the observation made by the learned Commissioner in his judgment. This argument finds support from the observation made by the learned Commissioner in his judgment. The learned Additional Commissioner has clearly held that the sold area belongs to Khata No. 566/576 and the whole of the area of this Khata has been sold to the defendant through the sale deed, hence it cannot be said to be the transfer of a fragment and, therefore, he upheld the sale deed. 8. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent as well as in the observations made by the learned Addl. Commissioner. In Khata No. 566/576 the total area recorded concerning part of plot No. 1128 is 0-11-15 having land revenue 2.87 p. The sale deed clearly points to this very area having this very rent to have been sold to the defendants No. 1 to 6, hence it cannot be said to be a sale of any fragment of any plot. It is quite common that a particular plot may become several divisions which may be located in different khatas, hence a sale of any division would be valid even though it may appear that only a part of the plot has been transferred. When the whole area of any khata is sold it will not be said to be a sale of a fragment even though the plot may be having several suo-divisions. In such circumstances the sale deed executed in this case was perfectly valid and the suit did not deserve to be decreed. The order of the trial court was rightly reversed by the appellate court. This appeal, therefore has no force and is dismissed.