JUDGMENT : BANERJI, J. This is an appeal against an order of remand under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are these:— The decree-holder, respondent, brought a suit for partition of a third share of certain property, including shares in revenue-paying villages, and for possession of a divided one-third share. The case was compromised, and in accordance with the compromise a decree for partition was made, as prayed in the plaint. The decree was thus a decree for partition and for possesion of the share which would be allotted to the plaintiff on partition. As regards the revenue-paying property the partition could not be effected by the Civil Court, but under the provisions of section 265 of the Code it could only be made by the Collector, and according to the law for the time being in force for partition of revenue-paying estates. The decree was accordingly sent to the Collector for partition of the revenue-paying property. As we have pointed out above, the Collector could only make the partition under the law in force, namely, in these Provinces, the Land Revenue Act. Under section 107 of that Act an application for partition can only be made by one or more recorded co-sharers. As the plaintiff was not a recorded co-sharer, the Collector refused to make the partition. Thereupon the Court of first instance ordered the proceedings to be filed, that is, as the learned Judge says, rejected the application for execution. This order the learned Judge has set aside, and he has remanded the case to the Court of first instance with a direction to give the decree-holder an opportunity to apply for possession of the undivided shares in the villages and to deliver possession of such shares on an application being made. This order of the Court below is in our judgment erroneous. The decree was, as we have already said, a decree not for joint possession of an undivided share but for separate possession of a divided one-third share. In fact, the plaintiff had in the plaint stated that he was in possession jointly with his brothers, so that the learned Judge in directing the “Court below to deliver joint posssession of an undivided one-third share has directed that Court to do that which the decree does not authorize it to do. In fact, the plaintiff had in the plaint stated that he was in possession jointly with his brothers, so that the learned Judge in directing the “Court below to deliver joint posssession of an undivided one-third share has directed that Court to do that which the decree does not authorize it to do. We think, under the circumstances, the Court of first instance was right in refusing to grant the application for partition of the revenue-paying estate and possession of a separate one-third share of such estate. The decree passed by the Civil Court for partition of the revenue-paying villages will not be infructuous if, for the purpose of obtaining partition, the decree-holder applies to the revenue authorities and gets his name entered in the revenue papers on the strength of the decree, which declares his title and is binding on all persons who are parties to the suit. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the Court below and restore that of the Court of first instance. Under the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.