JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Mr. Maheshwar Prasad and Mr. I.B. Singh, Members - In Second Appeal No. 49 of 1977-78, Dehradun, Darshon Singh and another v. Kanwar Singh etc., on October 15, 1979, Sri J.S. Gupta, the then Member, referred the following two questions for decision by the Full Bench:- (1) Whether in a suit for division of holding under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, where the defendant denies the title of the plaintiff, it is necessary for the plaintiff to get his suit converted into one for declaration and division under Sections 229-B/176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and (2) If the plaintiff is required to get his suit for division converted into a suit for declaration and division, whether State has to be given a notice under Section 80, C.P.C.? We have heard the learned counsel for the Respondents and D.G.C. (R) Sri R.N. Misra. Neither the Appellants nor their counsel are present despite notice. 2. It was argued on behalf of the Respondents that where the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff in a suit for division of the holding, it is necessary for a finding to be recorded on the question of title, and therefore, it was necessary for the plaintiff to convert his suit into one for declaration and division under Section 229-B/176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It was further argued that, if in such circumstances it became necessary to convert the suit, the State Government would necessary become a party under Section 229-B, and that, therefore, a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. would be essential. The respondents cited the ruling of a learned Single Member in Ramesh Chandra v. Panna Lal 1977 A.W.C. (Rev.) 125. in support of these argument. 3. We are unable to agree with this view. If it were to be accepted, the necessary consequence would be that almost all contested suit under Section 176 would have to be converted into suits for declaration and division under Section 229-B/176. A plain reading of the ruling in Ramesh Chandra v. Panna Lal (supra) would also show that it does not support the argument of the Respondents. In that case the plaintiff was a recorded co-tenant who sues for division under Section 176. A plain reading of the ruling in Ramesh Chandra v. Panna Lal (supra) would also show that it does not support the argument of the Respondents. In that case the plaintiff was a recorded co-tenant who sues for division under Section 176. The defendant raised a question of title on which an adverse finding was given by the learned Addl. Commissioner, but this was struck down by the Board. The learned Member held that the Addl. Commissioner had erred in giving a finding regarding title in a suit under Section 176, which clearly implies approval of the arguments but forward before him that, if a defendant contests the title of a recorded co-tenant, it was for the defendant to file a suit under Section 229-B and establish his contention. This would support the corollary view that it is not necessary for a recorded co-tenant to file a suit under Section 229-B/176 if his title is opposed by the defendant. 4. Section 176(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act reads follows:- "A Bhumidhar may sue for division of his holding." It is important to note that a Bhumidhar may sue only for the division of his holding. In other words, it is clearly implied that he must, already be a person having his name recorded in the holding, as, otherwise, it cannot be said to be his holding. 5. On the other hand, if a person not recorded in a holding, seeks division, it appears to us that it would be necessary first for such person to establish his title under Section 229-B and then only would further action for division of his holding, as established as a co-tenant has already initiated a suit under Section 176, and wishes to convert it into a suit under Section 229-B/176, then such a application should ordinarily be allowed, but it will be necessary for such a party then to implead the State Government and to serve a notice under Section 80, C.P.C. for this purpose for which a reasonable time should also be allowed. 6. Putting it in other words, it is only a recorded co-tenant who is competent to file a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 6. Putting it in other words, it is only a recorded co-tenant who is competent to file a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Where such a suit is filed by a recorded co-tenant, mere denial of the title by the defendant will not make it incumbent on the plaintiff to convert his suit into one of declaration under Section 229-B. 7. Our answer to the questions referred to us is, therefore:- The first question is answered in the negative, and the second question does not arise. 8. Let the record be sent with these answers to the questions referred to us for disposal of the appeal according to law.