JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - R.P. Gupta, learned Member, by his order dated August 11, 1981 referred the following for decision by this Full Bench constituted by learned Senior most Member/Chairman of the Board of Revenue, dated August 21, 1981: - "Whether in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act a declaration of specific share in a holding or part thereof cannot be given?" 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for defendant-appellant that in a suit under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951 the declaration of the share of the plaintiff or defendant cannot be made that in a suit under Section 229-B only declaration possible is for co-Sirdari or for co-Bhumidhari rights Reliance has been placed on Karam Deo v. Chunni Lal, 1972 R.D. 186. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that declaration of co-Bhumidhari or co-Sirdari right includes declaration of share also. The plaintiff cannot be forced to file a suit for partition as it may effect his right of succession by survivorship under Section 176 of Act I of 1951. If declaration of shares in a declaratory suit is refused it means that such a suit will have to be filed in a civil court which is not possible in view of the explanation of Section 331 of Act I of 1951 and that the words 'part thereof should include the declaration of share as well." 5. Prior to the date of vesting there were three kinds of co-ownership or co-tenureholdership: - (i) Co-parcenery, Tenancy, (ii) Joint tenancy, and (iii) Tenancy in common. 6. The conception of a coparcenary tenureholdership was peculiar to Hindu Law only. Coparcenary of common law arose where two or more persons hereditaments by the same title by descent. It may be said that this type of co-tenureholdership does not exist now due to Sections 4 and 6 of Act I of 1951 and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank, 1961 R.D. 326 wherein it was held that on the passing of the Act entire property vested in the State and what is conferred on the intermediary by Section 18 is a new right altogether which he never had. 7. 7. Joint tenants are those who form one body of ownership. It connotes four ideas unity of title, unit of possession, unity of interest and unity of commencement of title. One of the characteristics of joint tenancy is that the rule of devolution is governed by the law of survivorship but absence of this rule cannot be said to be fatal to the existence of joint tenancy. According to Halsbury's laws of England each joint tenancy has an identical interest in the whole land and every part of it. The title of each arises by the same Act. The interest of each is the same in extent, nature and duration. Tenancy in common does not require the four incidents stated above but there is only unity of possession. It may be unequal and their titles may be different and may have commenced on different occasions. According to Halsbury's Laws of England under such a tenancy the land was said to be held in undivided shares, and the tenancy differed from a joint tenancy in that it requires neither unity of title, interest nor time, but only unity of possession. 8. We have either joint tenureholdership or tenancy in common under Act I of 1951. The act had not abrogated the principle of joint tenancy. 9. Section 229-B as it stands after amendment by amending Act No. 1 of 1965. Section 229-B of Act I of 1951: "Declaratory suit by person claiming to be Asami of a holding or part thereof: - (1) Any person claiming to be an Asami of a holding or any part thereof, whether exclusively or jointly with any other person may sue the land holder for a declaration of his rights as Asami in such holding or part, as the case may be. (2) In any suit under sub-section (1) any other person claiming to hold as Asami under the landholder shall be impleaded as defendant. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a Bhumidhar with the amendment that for the word 'land holder' the words 'the State Government and Gaon Sabha are substituted therein." 10. Old Section 229-B stood prior to the said amendment as follows after amendment by U.P. Act No. XVIII of 1956. Old Section 229-B stood prior to the said amendment as follows after amendment by U.P. Act No. XVIII of 1956. "229-B(1) Any person claiming to be an Asami of a holding whether exclusively or jointly with any other person may sue the landholder - (a) for a declaration that he is Asami of the holding, or (b) for a declaration of his share therein, (2) In any suit under sub-section (1) any other person claiming to hold as Asami under the land holder shall be impleaded as defendant. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply to a suit by a person claiming to be a Sirdar as the case may be, with the amendment that for the word 'land-holder' the word 'the State Government and the Gait Sabha are substituted therein." 11. The controversy has arisen as not, sub-section (b) of Old Section 229-B(i) is not to be found in any shape in the present Section 229-B of Act I of 1951, that the share of the plaintiff and defendant cannot be determined in a declaratory suit under the present Section 229-B. 12. In order to appreciate the scope of Section 229-B which provides for suits for declaration of rights of tenure-holders it is proper to consider its legislative history. In the province of Agra, under the N.W.F.P. Rent Acts of 1873, and 1888, a tenant if his rights were denied, had to go to the civil court for a declaration of his rights as a tenant. But if the fact of tenancy was admitted and the dispute related to the class to which the tenancy related, suits lay in the revenue court under Section 10 of those Acts. The same position obtained in Oudh under the Oudh Rent Act, 1886, U.P. Act 13 of 1939 added sub-clause (13-B) to Section 108 of the Oudh Rent Act, 1886. By it shifts "for a declaration of right as a tenant" cognisable by the Revenue Court Section 95 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1901 conferred on tie revenue courts jurisdiction in respect of suits for declaration as to whether a person was a tenant or not. 13. The said provisions was interpreted to cover suits between landholders and tenants alone. By it shifts "for a declaration of right as a tenant" cognisable by the Revenue Court Section 95 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1901 conferred on tie revenue courts jurisdiction in respect of suits for declaration as to whether a person was a tenant or not. 13. The said provisions was interpreted to cover suits between landholders and tenants alone. It was held that suits raising the question 'who is the tenant of the holding' or 'does the tenancy belong to the plaintiff or to the defendant' do not raise a question between the tenant and the landholder alone, they involved a third person and as such, such suits were outside the purview of Section 95. These lacunae were removed by Section 121 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926. Under that section a tenant could sue a landholder and also any person claiming through him for a declaration of his rights as a tenant. Thus, suits raising various questions relating to the nature and terms or the quality and quantity of a tenancy as against persons, claiming under the landholder became triable under Section 121. 14. The criteria laid down by this section were whether the plaintiff claimed as a tenant and whether the defendant was alleged to be holding through the landholder. If the defendant was not so alleged but was in the plaint treated as a trespasser the suit would be outside Section 121. Barring this there was no other limitation. A suit where both parties claim the tenancy to the exclusion of the other, raises the question who is the tenant. A suit where several plaintiffs claim that they are the tenants and not the defendants, raises the same question - who are the tenants. The third class of cases where the plaintiff says that he and the defendant both are the tenants, raises the very question "who are the tenants" or, in either words "who are the holders of the tenancy," All such cases are of the same nature and will be covered by the same provisions. 15. In Ram Pratap Singh v. Chhotey Lal Singh, 10 A.L.J. 408. It was held by a Division Bench, that the defendant by Asserting sole title to the tenancy was claiming through the landholder. The plaintiff wanted a declaration of his rights as a tenant to a part of the holding under a private arrangement. 15. In Ram Pratap Singh v. Chhotey Lal Singh, 10 A.L.J. 408. It was held by a Division Bench, that the defendant by Asserting sole title to the tenancy was claiming through the landholder. The plaintiff wanted a declaration of his rights as a tenant to a part of the holding under a private arrangement. In substance he wanted the private partition to be recognised and declared, the suit under Section 321 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 was maintainable. Thus one joint tenant could sue for a declaration of the nature and extent of his rights in the holding and similarly a particular share in a joint holding was declared under Sec. 121 in Bhagwana Sahai v. Ram Chandra, A.I.R. 1928 Alld. 693. It was also held that oven though a suit for division of holding was provided for by Section 37 of the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, yet a declaratory suit also was maintainable in the revenue court. 16. The Board of Revenue, on the other hand, in Anmol Pandey v. Ram Lal, 1936 R.D. 371. It held that where a specific share was claimed if, a joint holding the title could well be decided in a partition suit under Section 37 and as such a mere declaratory suit was meaningless and incompetent. 17. This limited controversy was set at rest by the U.P. Tenancy Act I of 1939. The legislature accepted the High Court's view. In Section 59 it added a clause permitting a declaration of a share in a joint tenancy. The background of this change shows that this addition was made not with a view to limit or restrict the scope but to make explicit what was implicit in the provision, namely, to make it clear that a share in a joint tenancy could also be the subject of declaration. The parties need not, perforce, sue for division of the holding when the only dispute was as to the extent of shares, and not separation of possession. The intention was not to confine the applicability of Section 59 to suits relating to joint tenancy in which the plaintiff claims a declaration as to his share in the holding. 18. Old Section 229-B of the Act was practically a reproduction of Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act with a verbal alterations which do not effect the scope of the section. 19. 18. Old Section 229-B of the Act was practically a reproduction of Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act with a verbal alterations which do not effect the scope of the section. 19. In Ram Jiawan Koeri v. The Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 1966 R.D. 52, Mr. K.B. Asthana as he then was held as follows: - "There is nothing in Section 229-B laying down that a simple declaration can be given by a Revenue Court that the plaintiff is a co-tenure holder. What this section contemplates is that when a claim is based on joint rights then the proper declaration which can be given is of the share therein. Moreover Section 229-B envisages two distinct kinds of suits one class of suits which are based on exclusive claim to a holding and the second class of suits which are based on a joint claim. A claim of exclusive right is different and distinct from a claim of joint rights. It cannot be said that the claim of exclusive tenancy includes a claim of joint tenancy. It follows therefrom that if the plaintiff in a suit for declaration for exclusive rights is not able to establish that right he cannot ask the court and the court cannot grant him the relief of joint rights though on the evidence on record it is found that the plaintiff had no exclusive right but a joint right. In these circumstances, the proper course open to the court is to dismiss the suit. When Section 229-B does not contemplate a declaration of co-tenancy the revenue court cannot claim the power of jurisdiction to give such a declaration under some general law." 20. The above view of Mr. K.B. Asthana, J. was not approved by the Division Bench in Bechu and another v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others, 1966 R.D. 333 in which it was held as follows; - "Whatever distinction may exist between a claim of exclusive right from a claim of joint rights in jurisprudence, a suit for a claim of exclusive tenancy rights is in pith and substance similar to a claim of joint tenancy from the point of view of Section 229-B both are provided for therein and the same court entertains both of them. Hence a suit for a declaration of co-tenureholdership can be maintained under Section 229 B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act." 21. The Legislature has been over the decades constantly enlarging the jurisdiction of the revenue courts so as to bring all the dispute of title of a tenure-holder with a purview of single tribunal namely the revenue court. 22. In Phoolrani Smt. v. Ranballi Mani etc., 1963 R.D. 1. It was held that a declaratory suit under Section 229-B for part of the holding should normally be thrown out. As it was not maintainable and the suit must be brought for the entire holding even though the dispute related only to part of it and the amendment for making the suit for the whole holding should be allowed and in Hari Narain v. Ram Dulari, 1965 R.D. 251 and in Mangoo, etc. v. Jeut, etc., 1965 R.D. 61. It was held that the plea of above defect could not be allowed to be raised in the second appeal. 23. The above rulings have now become obsolete. In view of U.P. Amendment Act 12 of 1965 this amending Act replaced old sub-section (1) and made it crystal clear that the suit for part of holding also is maintainable. See Ram Pyare v. Shyam Raji, 1970 R.D. 315 so the phrase, or any part thereof, or does not mean share, in Section 229-B(u) it does not mean shares therein and contemplates suits for even part of the holding. 24. Section 229-B for the first time was added to the Act in 1964. This very section was added to the statute book as Section 229-A by U.P. Ordinance II of 1954 which remained in force from August 6, 1954 till the date when the U.P. Act XX of 1954 came into force, added by Section 44 of the U.P. Act XX of 1954 in the following words: - "229-B (1) Any person claiming to be an Asami either exclusively or jointly with any other such person may sue the land holder for a declaration that he is an Asami or for a declaration of his share as joint Asami in the holding, as the case may be. (2) In any suit under this section any person claiming to hold as an Asami through the landholder shall be joined as a party." The said section entitled for declaration of Asami rights or joint Asami rights. 24. Section 13 of the U.P. Act XVIII of 1956 substituted this section by the above quoted Section 229-B in para No. 10. 25. The present Section 229-B(1) for the first time uses the phrase for a declaration of his rights as Asami in such holding or part as the case may be, the word rights is very comprehensive. It includes share therein and by omitting cl. (b) if subsection (1) of Section 229-B which stood by amendment of Act No. XVIII of 1956, the Legislature has certainly enlarged the scope of Section 229-B by using the word the declaration of his rights as Asami, Sirdar, Bhumidhar now Asamis Bhumidhars and Bhumidhars with non transferable rights, therefore, the legislature which has been, continuously enlarging the jurisdiction of revenue court regarding tenancy land had not restricted the rights of declaration by a revenue court merely of share of parties. By omitting clause (b) of sub-section (1) of old Section 229-B and by using the phrase for a declaration of his rights as Asami in such holding or part as the case may be the scope of Section 229-B has not been in any way restricted rather it has been enlarged and as we have quoted the history of the legislation regarding declaratory rights by revenue court of tenureholdership even if the word share therein has not been specifically mentioned in the present Section 229-B which was incorporated previously in Section 229-B which was clone only to set at rest controversy between the rulings of the High Court it has been deleted and the word "rights" has been used. The using of the word in plural has enhanced the scope of the section and includes all rights including the declaration of share therein. 26. The using of the word in plural has enhanced the scope of the section and includes all rights including the declaration of share therein. 26. The emission of declaration of share therein is not intended to limit the scope of the section as the phrase was used only to honour the view of the Hon'ble High Court as has been shown by quoting the history of the legislation and interpretation of the Hon'ble High Court as quoted above and the omission of the phrase would have reverted to the previous position for declaring share in the tenancy even if the word rights would not have been used in Section 229-B by using the word 'rights' was for the first time used in the provision for declaration of rights in the statute book, therefore, our conclusion is that share also be declared in a declaratory suit under Section 229-B. 27. The Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to declare the share of a tenant in view of Section 331 of the Act. A person cannot be left without a forum for redressing his claim of his right of declaration of his share and cannot be forced to get his share divided in a division suit when he does not want its division and wants declaration only of his share. 28. In view of the above, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative, i.e., in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act a declaration of specific share in a holding or part thereof should be given by a revenue court. 29. Let the Second appeal be put up before the learned Member concerned, at once, having jurisdiction for decision of the second appeal at an early date.