JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff from the concurrent judgments of the lower Courts, on the one hand, accepting his story that there had been a partition by metes and bounds between him on the one hand and his uncle the defendant on the other, as long ago as 1948 ; and, on the other, (and this is his real grievance) repelling [in view of section 44 of the Indore land Revenue and Tenancy Act (1 of 1931)1 his claim that this finding about a private partition entitles him to a direction from the civil Courts that the revenue authorities, should mutate his name to the exclusion of the defendant in their entries in respect of the plot numbers held by him separately by virtue of the said private partition. Thus the question resolves only to whether, and, if so, in what circumstances a private partition is binding on the revenue authorities, notwithstanding the provisions of the said section (and the corresponding provision in section 69 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, and section 178 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code ). ( 2. ) THE facts of the case are simple. For certain lands of the family, the plaintiff and the defendant are now entered jointly in the revenue papers. The plaintiff having been in exclusive separate possession of certain of these plot numbers wanted that there should be a mutation in his name to the exclusion of the defendant in respect of those plots. The revenue authorities, however, would not do this, as they do not recognise any partition made privately without the order of a tehsildar on consent of the parties concerned In case of disagreement between the parties the revenue authorities would only act in implementation of a decree of a competent civil Court, declaring the shares, it being the duty of the revenue authorities themselves to make the final decree , that is, a partition by metes and bounds in accordance with the shares specified by the civil Court. Therefore, the plaintiff came with the suit for a declaration that he was in separate possession of these plot numbers and that this partition though made privately was final and further that the civil Court should give a declaration to the fitch that a legal partition had already been effected which would compel the revenue authorities to give effect to the private partition and correct their entries accordingly. ( 3. ) THE defendant took the position that there was some arrangement in 1948 ; but it was one for convenience and not a final partition. Accordingly until there was a new partition in the manner required by the present law through the agency of the revenue authorities no mutation could be made. Both the lower Courts have accepted the plaintiffs position that the "partition" was not a provisional arrangement but one final as far as the parties were concerned ; still, in view of the revenue law they were not prepared to give a direction that the revenue authorities should correct their papers in conformity with the plaintiffs contention From this the plaintiff has come up in appeal and has tried to support his position by a number of unreported ruling of this Court which I shall refer to briefly. But before that the full implications of the revenue law have to be understood. "where the parties go to the revenue authorities with an agreed scheme they will straightway effect a partition by metes and bounds, and naturally correct their papers in accordance with this allotment Where the parties do not agree, the revenue authorities by themselves will not make a partition. This is obviously because it would still be an open question what share each of the co-sharers is to get, and until the share is specified no allotment by metes and bounds would be possible In such a situation they will have to go to the civil Court and obtain a declaration of their shares. This declaration can only be to the effect that such and such co-sharer holds such and such a fraction in the joint property. On what particular unit in the joint property the particular co-sharer should be given possession in accordance with the share is not the business of the civil Court. This declaration can only be to the effect that such and such co-sharer holds such and such a fraction in the joint property. On what particular unit in the joint property the particular co-sharer should be given possession in accordance with the share is not the business of the civil Court. Once the shares are declared by the civil Court the matter goes again to the revenue authorities who proceed to carve out by metes and bounds different parcels in proportion to the shares specified. This, of course, applies only to agricultural lands and in the event of there being non-agricultural lands they should be partitioned by metes and bounds by the civil Court itself in accordance with its usual procedure ; but we are not here concerned with that situation, all the lands being agricultural. ( 4. ) WHAT the plaintiff wants is not merely that the civil Court should declare the shares, that is to say, a half share to the plaintiff and the remaining half to the defendant. If this alone is what the plaintiff wants, then the matter would go again to the revenue authorities who would partition the properties by metes and bounds. Naturally they would give due regard consistent with the extent of the shares to the present possession. But it is conceivable and it is probably the apprehension of the plaintiff himself that he has something more than the equivalent of the half share and the present state of affairs may be altered to his disadvantage. We do not know how exactly it would shape; but there is no guarantee that the plaintiff would in such a situation be allowed to retain all that he now has in his separate possession. At all events the civil court cannot declare that the half share of a particular co-sharer in the agricultural lands shall be carved out of such and such plot numbers; this concerns the revenue authorities. The policy behind it is obvious, namely, that in the ultimate analysis it is the revenue authorities which should control the allotment of individual pieces of land in proportion of the shares of the co-sharers. The plaintiffs attitude is fallacious. As far as his possession is concerned it has been now recognized by the civil Court and it cannot be disturbed except by agreement or by an order of a competent Court. The plaintiffs attitude is fallacious. As far as his possession is concerned it has been now recognized by the civil Court and it cannot be disturbed except by agreement or by an order of a competent Court. But at the same time he cannot compel the revenue authorities to give effect to it which may be called a formal partition followed by mutation of the names in the register, that is, the deletion of the other co-sharers name in the entries for the respective plots allowed to the respective co-sharer. ( 5. ) SO far is clear enough from the wording of section 44 of the Indore act and the corresponding sections of the subsequent enactments. The plaintiff, however, contends, that the case-law placed by him justifies the declaration by the civil Court not merely that the plaintiff has got such a fractional share, but also that he should be recognized by the revenue authorities as being in separate exclusive possession of particular plot numbers. The cases cited by the plaintiff are the following : ( 6. ) THE first case cited is Shankar v. Kalu and others (Second Appeal No. 144 of 1952, decided at Indore on 31-3-1958. ). This ruling follows an earlier Divisional Bench ruling Ramaji v. Bhagirath (1949 MLR 111.) "section 44 of the Indore Land Revenue and Tenancy Act says that. . . . . . no partition can be recorded or recognized except as provided by that section. " The word used is "only" ; "therefore, even if there was a private partition between the parties, that has no validity under the Indore Land Revenue and Tenancy Act. " The judgment goes on to set out the special features of an earlier case with which we are not concerned here. ( 7. ) THE next case is Ranchood v. Bawla and others (Second Appeal No 54 of 1955, decided at Indore on 2-9-1958.) The relief sought in that suit was similar to that in the instant one. It was held : "the private partition was not void. However. . . . . . for revenue purposes it would not be recognized until it is recorded in the manner prescribed by section 44. . . . . . It was held : "the private partition was not void. However. . . . . . for revenue purposes it would not be recognized until it is recorded in the manner prescribed by section 44. . . . . . It was open for the parties to arrive at a partition arrangement and that arrangement when acted upon bind the parties apart from the question as to the point of time and circumstances in which such arrangement would be recognized for revenue purposes. " A declaration of title was actually given to the plaintiff in that case; but not a declaration that he was entitled to get recorded it in the revenue papers in accordance with the private partition. ( 8. ) THE third case is Rajalbai v. Nathoo and Shankar ( Second Appeal No. 75 of 1961, decided at Indore on 14-3-1961.) in which also the prayer was for a direction by the civil Court for giving mutation of the plaintiffs, names in the revenue records. There also the defendants resisted the prayer, inter alia on the ground that no partition had taken place in accordance with the revenue law. The lower Courts declaration of the plaintiff s title was maintained by the High Court but it refused to modify the lower Courts decision refusing to direct mutation in accordance with the separate possession of the plaintiff on the basis of a private arrangement. ( 9. ) TWO other cases, namely, Hiralal v. Motilal (Second Appeal No. 521of 1960, decided at Indore on 7-9-1962.) and Dayaram v. Champa-lal (Second Appeal No. 543 of 1960, decided at Indore on 5-10-1962.) have laid down the same principles. ( 9. ) TWO other cases, namely, Hiralal v. Motilal (Second Appeal No. 521of 1960, decided at Indore on 7-9-1962.) and Dayaram v. Champa-lal (Second Appeal No. 543 of 1960, decided at Indore on 5-10-1962.) have laid down the same principles. The total result can be summarised thus: (i) Firstly, that a private partition without the intervention of the revenue authorities is not void, and if it had been acted upon, the parties are bound by it until the separate possession of either of them is varied by the order of a competent Court; (ii secondly, on the basis of a private partition no party can succeed in getting mutation because that private partition is not recognized by the revenue law; (iii) thirdly, a civil Court would certainly grant on a finding of facts a declaration that a particular party has got title and to a particular fraction in joint agricultural property and that declaration of title is binding on the revenue Courts ; (iv) finally, a civil Court cannot direct the revenue Court to accept for the purposes of mutation that a particular co-sharer is in exclusive possession of a particular parcel or parcels of agricultural land, by virtue of a partition made without their intervention. ( 10. ) THE result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant shall pay the costs of this appeal to the respondent along with pleaders, fee calculated according to rules. Appeal dismissed.