ORDER Raghavendra Prasad, Member This revision has been filed against the orders of the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, dated 25th July 1963 in Appeal No. 76A /27 / 62/83. The brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant had applied to the Naib-Tahsildar for the partition of a joint holding with the applicant. The applicant filed an objection to the partition on the grounds that the non-applicant had no title to these lands which were given to him by an oral will by his aunt Smt. Jhumnibai and that at the time of her death his aunt had adopted him as her son. The Tahsildar rejected this objection and proceeded with the partition of the holding as he was not convinced of the genuineness of the objection on the face of certain records filed by the non-applicant. The applicant filed two successive appeals to the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner which were decided against him. Shri H.N. Dvivedi appeared for the applicant and Shri v. K. Sapre appeared for the non-applicant. Shri H.N. Dvivedi said that the case of the applicant has been prejudiced because he was not given an opportunity to prove the genuineness of his objection. He said that an issue should have been framed by the Naib-Tahsildar and the parties should have been called to adduce evidence in order to show if the objection raised by the applicant was genuine or not. According to him the decision of the Naib-Tahsildar was hasty and was formed without hearing the applicant. Now the first question that has to be examined is whether the applicant had sufficient opportunity to show that the objection raised by him was genuine and was not frivolous. The non-applicant had filed some documents along with his plaint. The applicant had not filed any document in support of the objection made by him along with his written statement. On 3-8-62 the counsel of the non-applicant had again filed certain other documents. The counsel of the applicant was not present in the Court on that date but his Munshi was present. On 4-8-63 when the objection of applicant was rejected by the Naib-Tahsildar the counsel of the applicant was present and his arguments were heard. It was open for the counsel of the applicant to have filed such documents as he had in his possession for proving his objection but he did not do that. On 4-8-63 when the objection of applicant was rejected by the Naib-Tahsildar the counsel of the applicant was present and his arguments were heard. It was open for the counsel of the applicant to have filed such documents as he had in his possession for proving his objection but he did not do that. According to the revenue papers the land in question is entered in the joint name of the applicant and the non-applicant. According to the copy of the statement in another case filed by the non-applicant the applicant had admitted the non-applicant to be the joint owner of the land in dispute. As opposed to this the applicant had produced nothing. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant that the Naib-Tahsildar should have framed an issue and should have given both the parties an opportunity to prove as to whether he had a genuine title does not find support from the language of Section 178(1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Code). According to the proviso to this section the Tahsildar will postpone the proceedings of partition if any question of title is raised. That question must be prima facie, a question of title. From the material placed by the parties before the Naib-Tahsildar the question raised by the applicant did not appear to be prima facie a question of title but appeared to be only an attempt to delay the proceedings of partition. If the applicant really had any documentary proof in his possession to support the claim of his title he could have filed copies of such document before any of the appellate Courts below. He had not done so. He only wants that opportunity should be given to the applicant to prove by oral evidence that he was the adopted son of his uncle and aunt and that the aunt at the time of her death had said that the land will exclusively belong to him. The object of the proviso is not to confer on the Naib-Tahsildar an authority of making elaborate investigation about the title of the parties. He has only been invested with a discretion to postpone the proceedings if a genuine question of title is raised. He is not supposed to postpone the proceedings of partition on questions of title raised by a party opposing partition which prima facie appear to be bogus. He has only been invested with a discretion to postpone the proceedings if a genuine question of title is raised. He is not supposed to postpone the proceedings of partition on questions of title raised by a party opposing partition which prima facie appear to be bogus. I am, therefore, of the view that the applicant had sufficient opportunity to show that the objection raised by him was genuine. Since he did not avail of it and since the non-applicant had produced such documentary evidence which led to the prima facie inference that he was a joint owner of the disputed land the Naib-Tahsildar was quite correct in rejecting the objection of the applicant and proceeding with the partition. In the result the revision is rejected with costs and the orders of the lower Courts are upheld.