Both the appeals, No. 2 and 3/Ganganagar District of 1957, arise out of a single judgment of the Bikaner Commissioner and hence will be disposed of by this judgment. 2. The facts of the case, put briefly, arc that Ram Kishen was at one time the recorded tenant of the land in dispute. Upon his demise the tenancy devolved upon his widow Mst. Dhanni. This Mst. Dhanni is alleged to have died so he five years prior to the institution of this suit. Upon Mst. Dhannis death Rupa succeeded in having the tenancy mutated in his name. Rupa thereafter transferred by sale 80 Bighas and 1 Biswas out of Khasra No. 200 in lieu of Rs. 4,500/- through a registered sale deed on 4.2.49 in favour of Ram Chandra. The relationship of the parties can be gathered from the pedigree table given by the lower appellate court in its judgment. Jaisa had four sons Teja, Mansa, Tiku and Pooran. Pooran died without leaving any issues. Sukhram and Rawat plaintiffs are the sons of Tiku. Rupa, who has since died, was the son of Mansa. This Rupa is now represented by his son Sardar. Lekhram proforma defendant is the son of Teja. On 30.10.50 the plaintiffs, Sukhram and Rawat, brought this suit against Rupa son of Mansa and Ram Chandra transferee from Rupa and Lekhram proforma defendant for division of the holding on the ground that they were entitled to one-third share in the holding as being sons of Tiku. The suit was contested by Rupa on the plea that Tiku had gone out in adoption in some other family and hence the plaintiffs being his sons were not entitled to any share in this tenancy. It was also pleaded that the tenancy was acquired by Rupa and Mst. Dhanni jointly and hence it devolved upon Rupa by survivorship and not through inheritance. The following issues were framed in this suit. (1) Whether the plaintiffs are the reversioners of Mst. Dhanni? (2) Whether the sale deed in favour of Ram Chandra and Rupa is ineffective as against the plaintiff? (3) How much land the plaintiffs are entitled to receive through division? (4) Whether court fee is not sufficient? (4) Whether the suit is time barred? and (6) To what relief are the plaintiffs entitled? 3. The parties led documentary as well as oral evidence in the case. (3) How much land the plaintiffs are entitled to receive through division? (4) Whether court fee is not sufficient? (4) Whether the suit is time barred? and (6) To what relief are the plaintiffs entitled? 3. The parties led documentary as well as oral evidence in the case. The documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs in the case consists of a certified copy of a genealogical table prepared during the settlement operations of Svt. 2001 in village Tehsildar. In this table Jaisa is shown as having four son the names of which have been given above. Ex. P. 1 and P. 2 are sketch plans of Khasra numbers in dispute. The evidence led by the defendants consists of the certified copies of the Gasht Girda-vari of the land in dispute commencing from Svt. 1983. In this Samvat year Ram Kishan is recorded as the tenant of the land in dispute. This entry continued in Samvat years 1984, 1985 and 1986. In 1987 Mst. Dhannis name appears in the Khasra Girdawari and that continued right upto Svt. 1996. In Svt. 1997 Girdharis name appears in the capacity of being an adopted son. In Svt. 2000, corresponding to 1943 A. D. Rupas name appears in the Gasht Girdavari. The parties led oral evidence as well. Special mention may be made of the statements of Mst. Pana and Ram Chandra who were examined by the defendants in this case. The trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the relationship alleged by them and hence they were not entitled to any relief. The trial court therefore rejected the suit. The plaintiffs went up in appeal before the learned commissioner who after examining the evidence came to the conclusion that the relationship setup by the plaintiffs stood established by the evidence led by the defendants themselves and hence granted a decree for division of the holding after declaring the plaintiffs share to be one-third During the course of his judgment it was also observed by the learned Commissioner that the transferee Ram Chandra failed to exercise that amount of precaution which was incumbent upon him. No decision has however been given as regards the sale deed in the operative part of the judgment Both Sardar and Ram Chandra have filed separate appeals against this decision. No decision has however been given as regards the sale deed in the operative part of the judgment Both Sardar and Ram Chandra have filed separate appeals against this decision. Both these appellants were however represented by Shri Laxmi Narain Yadava who has in both the appeals challenged the validily of the decision of the lower appellate court on common grounds. 4. The first contention raised by Shri Laxmi Narain Yadava before us is that as plaintiffs were not recorded in revenue papers as co-tenants of the holding they are not entitled to bring a suit for division and that they should first establish their title through a declaratory suit. Reference in this connection has been made to sec. 113 of the Bikaner State Land Revenue Act, 1945 which runs as below: — 113. Any joint owner of land or any joint tenant of a tenancy under a private landlord, or any occupancy tenant or a khatedar in a joint holding in a State land may apply to a Revenue Officer for partition of his share in the land or tenancy as the case may be, if— (a) it the date of the application the share is recorded in his name under Chapter IV, or (b) his right to the share has been established by a decree which is still subsisting at that date, or (c) a written acknowledgment of that right has been executed by all persons interested in the admission or denial thereof. It has been argued that as the plaintiffs name has not been recorded, they could not have brought an action for division of the holding. It is not necessary to dilate upon this point as the suit though commenced on 30.10.56 was pending at the time of the enforcement of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act on 15-10 55 and was decided thereafter on 24 2-56. As laid down in sec. 206 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, this suit shall be deemed to have commenced under this Act and shall be tried, heard and determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act. Sec. 53 of the Act relates to division of tenancies which runs as below :— "(1) No holding shall be divided so as to result in holdings of less area than the minimum prescribed by the State Government for each district or part of a district. Sec. 53 of the Act relates to division of tenancies which runs as below :— "(1) No holding shall be divided so as to result in holdings of less area than the minimum prescribed by the State Government for each district or part of a district. (2) A division of a holding shall be effected in the following manner :— (i) by agreement between the co-tenants in respect of :— (a) such division of the holding; and (b) the distribution of rent over the several portions into which the holding is so divided ; or (ii) by the decree or order of a competent court passed in a suit by one or more of the co-tenants for, the purpose of dividing the holding and distributing the rent thereof over the several portions into which it is divided. (3) No agreement for the division of a holding and the distribution of the rent thereof ah 11 be binding on the land holders unless he agrees thereto in writing. (4) To every suit for the division of one or more than one holding, all the co-tenants and the landholder shall be made parties. (5) A suit for the division of more than one holding may be instituted, provided that the parties are the same." It corresponds more or less to sec. 49 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1936. In both these sections the word "recorded co-tenants" has been used as was to be found in sec. 130 of the Bikaner Land Revenue Act. In cases arising under sec. 49 of the U. P. Tenancy Act the U. P. Board of Revenue has consistently held that all questions relating to title, share etc. of de jure or de facto tenants are to be determined by a suit under sec. 49 and not by a separate declaratory suit. We may refer only to a few important decisions in this connection. In Ganga vs. Ram Harakh decided on 18th September, 1948 (1948 R. D. 1059) it was observed by Shri Sathe J. M. as below :— "In my opinion if any questions regarding the plaintiffs title to share in the holding arise in a suit for division of the holding they can and should be disposed of in that very suit. In Ganga vs. Ram Harakh decided on 18th September, 1948 (1948 R. D. 1059) it was observed by Shri Sathe J. M. as below :— "In my opinion if any questions regarding the plaintiffs title to share in the holding arise in a suit for division of the holding they can and should be disposed of in that very suit. It was therefore, also ether wrong on the part of both the lower courts to direct the plaintiff to file a declaratory suit under sec. 59 first. In fact I am rather surprised that the two lower courts should have committed this mistake after the clear exposition of law in Bhairon Ram vs. Murari Lal. This ruling definitely states that when a person who comes into court as a co-tenant is out of possession and desires possession he should bring a case under sec. 37 against the tenants in possession as the question of his right to co-tenancy if challenged can also be decided in such a suit " In Pooranlal vs. Chunni a Division Bench of the U.P. Board consisting of Shri Sultan Ahamed and Shri K. M. Lall (1948 R.D. 161) observed as below :— "It is true that from about 1333 F. the plaintiffs names do not appear in village papers. But the mere omission of names does not do away with the right of co-tenants even if they have not paid rent. It is a well established principle of law that the possession of one co-tenant is the possession of all co-tenants; In Bal Bhadra vs. Bhagwan Din, it has been rightly held that in the absence of evidence as regards transfer or "adverse possession the mere fact that the name of a co-tenant was not entered in the papers for a long period during which a settlement intervened does not extinguish his rights. The same view was substantially held in Sital Bux Singh vs. Sheo Tahal and also Mohd. Hussain vs. Siddiq Hasan." 5. We may also refer in this connection to the observations of the learned author (U. P. Tenancy Act 1939 by Bilgrami 1950 Edition, pp. 485). "It may be asked if questions relating to plaintiffs title, bis right to claim division, the extent of his interest in the holding etc. if contested should be decided as part of the partition case under this sec. 485). "It may be asked if questions relating to plaintiffs title, bis right to claim division, the extent of his interest in the holding etc. if contested should be decided as part of the partition case under this sec. (49) or any of the parties may be directed to have these disputes settled by a separate suit before division is claimed. On this point the balance of convenience lies in favour of this view that all matters which are within the cognizance of revenue courts should be disposed of by them with the suit. This will rule frivolous pleas, discourage delaying tactics and avoid expenses and multiplicity of proceedings. The tendency of the Board as indicated in cases decided by them under the 1926 Act appears to be to get all disputes regarding possession, title, extent of share etc. settled in the suit under this section. "We find ourselves in respectful agreement with these views and therefore hold that the objection raised by Shri Laxmi Narain Yadava is untenable. 6. The other contention relates to a question of fact. As both the lower courts have arrived at different findings on the question as to whether the plaintiffs proved themselves to be the revisioners of Mst. Dhanni or not, we have examined the entire evidence ourselves. A certified copy of a judgment in a civil case instituted by Rupa against Mst Dhanni for cancellation of the adoption of Girdhari dated 31.7.42 was also produced before the lower appellate court. In this case Rupa had himself filed a pedigree table wherein Mansa, Tiku, Teja and Pooran were shown as being sons of Jaisa. In fact no serious attempt has been made before us to show that Jaisa did not have these four sons. The only contention that has been raised before us is that it has not been prove that Kana and Jaisa were real brothers. This argument is of no avail. The defendant Sardara succeeded to this tenancy by virtue of being a descendant of Jaisa and it may be presumed that it could not have been so unless Jaisa had some relationship with Kana. In fact Sardara or Rupa never denied this relationship Their contention was hat the plaintiffs had no right to inherit because their father Teja had gone out in adoption in another family There is absolutely no evidence on the point. In fact Sardara or Rupa never denied this relationship Their contention was hat the plaintiffs had no right to inherit because their father Teja had gone out in adoption in another family There is absolutely no evidence on the point. Similarly there is no evidence to show that the tenancy was acquired jointly by Rupa and Mst. Dhanni. On the contrary the docu-mentry evidence led by the defendant himself shows that this tenancy originally stood in the name of Ram Kishen and upon his death it devolved upon his widow Mst. Dhanni. After Mst. Dhanni—Girdaris name appeared for some time. But due to the efforts male, by Rupa in this connection Girdhari went out of picture and Rupas name appeared instead. This definitely belies the suggestion that the tenancy was acquired jointly by Rupa with Mst. Dhanni. On the contrary it becomes clear that Rupa inherited this tenancy upon Mst. Dhannis demise by virtue of being a son of mansa who was a son of Jaisa. The plaintiffs being the sons of a third son of Jaisa, are entitled to as much share in the tenancy as the descendants of the other two sous of Jaisa, the fourth son of Jaisa having died without leaving any male issue. No limitation has been provided for suits under sec.53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act vide item No. 3, Schcdule III of the Act. The defendants never pleaded ouster or adveue possession. Under the circumstances, therefore, the lower appellate court was justified in holding that the plaintiffs had one-third share in the tenancy and that they were entitled to a decree accordingly. The appeal filed by Sardara is therefore without any substance and is hereby rejected. 7. As regards Ram Chanders appeal, it may be observed hat the lower appellate court has not included anything touching his rights in the operative part but has made some observations in the main body of the judgment Leaving them aside it is clear that as the plaintiffs were not a party to the sale their tenancy rights cannot be affected by it. The plaintiffs have a right to have their one-third share separated though division of the holding to be carried out in accordance with the provisions contained in sec. 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and the rules made thereunder. The shares of the other two co-tenants, Lekh Ram and Sardara shall remain joint. The plaintiffs have a right to have their one-third share separated though division of the holding to be carried out in accordance with the provisions contained in sec. 53 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and the rules made thereunder. The shares of the other two co-tenants, Lekh Ram and Sardara shall remain joint. The rent on the divided holdings shall be apportioned accordingly. Thus this appeal will also stand rejected.