JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 20-2-1980 wherein the learned member upheld the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer who set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Bhopal, dated 30-9-1975 directing partition of the agricultural lands between two brothers, i. e. the petitioner and respondent No. 4. ( 2. ) FACTS necessary for the decision of this petition are that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 acquired some property (agricultural lands)contributing money. It was alleged that although the property was acquired in the names of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, respondent No. 5 did not pay anything and, therefore, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Class II), Bhopal for declaration and also for correction of the sale deed. In the suit, it was alleged that although the property was acquired in the names of the three brothers, respondent No. 5 did not pay anything and hence the property belonged to the two plaintiffs, i. e. the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and respondent no. 5 is not entitled to any right in this property. ( 3. ) THE suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (Class II), Bhopal on 15-9-1961 and it was declared that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were the only owners of the land, entitled to half each. It was also declared that respondent No. 5 had no right in this property. In this suit, a decree was also granted for rectification of the sale deed. ( 4. ) AFTER the decree was passed, respondent No. 5 did not prefer any appeal and the decree became final. Ultimately in 1973, an application was submitted by the petitioner under section 178 of the M. P. Land Revenue code for effecting partition of the agricultural lands between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. An objection was raised that as the decree was not executed for 12 years, it had become infructuous. The learned Tahsildar did not accept the contention of the respondent No. 5 and ultimately directed partition of the agricultural lands half and half in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. ( 5. An objection was raised that as the decree was not executed for 12 years, it had become infructuous. The learned Tahsildar did not accept the contention of the respondent No. 5 and ultimately directed partition of the agricultural lands half and half in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. ( 5. ) AGAINST the order of the Tahsildar, an appeal was preferred before the Sub-Divisional Officer who set aside the order of the Tahsildar on the ground that as the decree of the Civil Court was not executed for 12 years, it had become infructuous. It was also suggested before the Sub-Divisional officer that respondent No. 5 had paid Rs. 2,000. 00 and all the three brothers had attempted to obtain loan from bank. On this ground, it was contended that all the three brothers are entitled to 1 /3 each. The learned sub-Divisional Officer felt that as it raised a question of title, the parties should approach Civil Court and get the matter decided, but unfortunately he did not bother to consider that once the title of the parties is decided by Civil Court, a decree for declaration needs no execution and it could not be said that it has become ineffective. Subsequently respondent No. 5 had acquired title by payment of consideration, but title could only be acquired by a registered deed of transfer as it involves right in immovable property. When the matter went before the Commissioner, it appears that the question of dispute of title was not agitated and was not raised. The learned commissioner disposed of the matter and maintained the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer only on the ground that the decree passed by the civil Court in favour of the petitioner was not executed for 12 years and it had become ineffective. The matter was taken up before the Board of revenue and the same view was affirmed and it was held by the learned member that as the decree was not executed, it had become ineffective. ( 6. ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decree was a decree for declaration and the relief of correction of the sale deed also was granted and even if subsequent relief of correction of sale deed was not done by executing the decree, it could not be said that the decree for declaration has become ineffective. Decree for declaration merely declares rights of parties and that decree having become final, the view taken by the Revenue Tribunals that it has become ineffective is apparently erroneous in law. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the Member of the Board of Revenue, on this wrong approach of law, had set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and thereby committed an error apparent on the face of the record and the petition deserves to be allowed. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer felt that there was a question of title and, therefore, the parties had to get the question of title decided by Civil Court. An attempt was made by the learned counsel by reference to the plaint filed by the petitioner to suggest that in fact a suit was filed, but it was dismissed. But a perusal of the plaint discloses that it was not a dispute of title between the petitioner and respondent No, 5, but it pertained to some dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 and it has nothing to do with the dispute purporting to have been raised before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The contention advanced by the learned counsel that as the suit was dismissed, the matter became final, is of no consequence. ( 8. ) IT is not contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that decree for declaration has become ineffective. What was contended was that as the sale deed was not got corrected and there were three real brothers, it appears that by this conduct, although the rights were determined by the Civil Court, the parties chose to abandon those rights, but there is no case of abandonment and was not pleaded before any of the revenue Tribunals. Apparently even what was suggested before the Sub-Divisional Officer that subsequent to the decree of Civil Court some money was paid by respondent No. 5 and that the parties attempted to get loan from a bank, is also not a clear statement suggesting that after the decree of the Civil Court deciding the title to the lands, respondent No. 5 had acquired any right in the property which was held by the Civil Court only to be of the petitioner and respondent No. 4. In the absence of any such right having been acquired by respondent No. 5 after the decision of the civil Court, it could not be said that any question of title was raised. ( 9. ) IT is not in dispute that no such right was acquired, nor any such plea was raised. The Civil Court determined the rights of the parties and held that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 only were entitled to half of the land in dispute. In view of this clear decision by the Civil Court, the revenue Tribunals had no option but to proceed under section 178 of the m. P. Land Revenue Code and partition the agricultural lands. The tahsildar was, therefore, right in directing partition of the lands under section 178 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code. It appears that Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the learned Member of the Board of revenue were obsessed with the view that after the decree was not executed for 12 years, it has become infructuous, but these Tribunals omitted to notice that when there is a decree for declaration of rights, there is no need to execute the decree declaring the rights of the parties and the decree could not be said to have become infructuous and, therefore, the view taken by these Tribunals apparently is misconceived and cannot be supported. Apparently, therefore, the Tribunals have committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record. ( 10. ) THE petition is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Commissioner and the learned Member of the board of Revenue are hereby quashed and the order passed by the Tahsildar directing partition under section 178 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code is upheld. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of this petition. Counsels fee Rs. 100. 00, if certified. Security amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. Petition allowed.