JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a defendant's second appeal against order dated July 3, 1976 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dismissing appeal No. 36 of 1975-76/Mathura, confirming order dated November 24, 1972 passed by S.D.O. Mathura, confirming lots for th share of defendant and th share of the plaintiff, giving plaintiff's lot to the west and defendant's lot to east, holding the 33 trees and well existing in the western lot to belong to the parties jointly accordingly to their shares. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant alone and have perused the record. Respondents and counsels are absent in spite of notice. 3. It has been argued that the courts below have erred in law in neither getting the trees and well valued and in not giving compensation according to his share to the defendant, nor have divided the disputed plots in such a way that the trees of the share of the defendant would have fallen in the lot of the defendant; that the very purpose of division suit by keeping the trees and well joint existing in the lot of the plaintiff has been frustrated and the dispute between the parties will be perpetrated if the lots so confirmed are not varied or at least compensation regarding the share of the defendant in the trees and well is not given to the defendant. Reference has been made to 1972 R.D. 144, 1976 R.D. 50 and Section 179 of the Act and Rule 159-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. In Lachmi Chand v. Mukhram, 1973 R.D. 144 it was held as follows:- "There is provision for inclusion of compensation for improvements and trees in Rule 159-A only where the holding is to be sold under Section 178 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. There is no provision in the law or the rules with regard to the appointment of the improvements or adjustment through compensation in respect of the same. Matters concerning ownership of trees or other improvements can be decided only on the agreement of the parties or adjudication in this regard. In other words, either the trees and improvements go to those who are proved to be the separate and specific owners and held in common. Matters concerning ownership of trees or other improvements can be decided only on the agreement of the parties or adjudication in this regard. In other words, either the trees and improvements go to those who are proved to be the separate and specific owners and held in common. It is not possible for a court in proceedings for division of holding to work out the compensation for trees and other improvements and then award proportions of share to the party deprived of its requisite share as a result of division of holding." 5. I has been held in Maharaj Singh v. Sunder Singh etc., 1976 R.D. 50 as follows:- "A suit for partition has two stages. In the first stage parties' shares are determined and a preliminary decree is passed. In the second stage a final decree is prepared dividing the holding in accordance with the Rules 156 and 157 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. In preparing the final decree whether improvements are taken into account or not for the purpose of valuation of the shares of parties is a point which will have to be decided with the help of case law because the Z.A. and L.R. Act itself is silent on the point. In view of these facts the question whether trees, wells and buildings etc. are included is a holding or not and whether their valuation is to be taken into account at the time of preparation of final Quras or not is a matter to be considered only when the final decree is prepared. To go into this question at the stage of preliminary decree is quite premature." 6. In 1973 R.D. 144 (supra) it has not been held that adjudication regarding compensation was not possible or was prohibited. In that case separate possession and ownership was determined by the lower courts and it was held the issue relating to separate ownership of trees and wells was one of fact and it was not possible to enter into any dispute in regard to them in the course of second appeal. 7. In 1976 R.D. 50 (supra) the matter regarding compensation etc. was sought to be decided before preparation of lots and final decree which has not allowed and the question of compensation etc. was left open for being decided afterwards. 8. 7. In 1976 R.D. 50 (supra) the matter regarding compensation etc. was sought to be decided before preparation of lots and final decree which has not allowed and the question of compensation etc. was left open for being decided afterwards. 8. Thus it will be seen that there is no prohibition in law or by decisions that in division suits valuation of trees and other improvements was not be worked out and compensation was not to be paid according to the share of the parties according to valuation worked out. 9. Rule 157 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules runs as follows:- "Rule 157. Before making a (division) the court shall- (a) determine separately the share of the plaintiff and each of the other co-tenure-holder; (b) record which if any, of the co-tenure-holders wish to remain joint; (c) make valuation of the holding (or holdings) in accordance with the rent-rate applicable to each plot in the holding; and (d) determine separately the value of the share of the plaintiff and each of the other co-tenure-holder." 10. Rule 159-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rule runs as follows:- "Rule 159-A. The price of a holding to be ascertained under Section 179, shall be 400 times the annual and revenue payable by the tenure-holder. To such valuation the compensation for improvement and trees, if any, shall be added." 11. Section 179 of Act I of 1951 runs as follows:- "Section 179. Valuation of the holding to be sold:- Where a court has, under Section 178, ordered a sale of the holding or holdings, it shall order a valuation of the same to be made in such manner as may be prescribed and shall offer to sell the same at the price so ascertained to the co-tenure-holders in such order of preference as may be prescribed." 12. Co-tenants are entitled to share in the improvements according to their share. When the land is divided according to their share are entitled to the benefit in the improvements in the land according to their share the improvements may be in the shape of trees or otherwise. The very purpose of division suit will be defeated it the improvements is allotted in the share of one party and the improvement is allowed to remain joint according to the share of the parties. The very purpose of division suit will be defeated it the improvements is allotted in the share of one party and the improvement is allowed to remain joint according to the share of the parties. By doing so the parties will be left to quarrelled in perpetuity where the improvement had been made jointly. If is just and reasonable that endeavour is made to give share in the improvements in the allotments of parties of if it is not possible then the improvement should be got valued and compensation should be given to the other co-tenants in whose lot the improvement is not allotted. If improvement can be valued according to rule 159-A in case of auction of the holding and compensation is to be paid to the co-tenants according to their share. I see no reason why the salutary rule should not be applied in the cases of division suits where the holding is not be sold but is to be divided according to the share of the parties and the valuation of the improvement has necessarily to be worked out in such cases for ends of justice and compensation should be given to the other co-tenants in whose lot the improvement is not allotted by the co-tenants in whose lots such improvement has been allotted. If it is not done then the parties will be left in dole drum and will be driven to further litigation about share in the improvements. The important feature of the division is that its basis should be equal valuation and not the equal area. The valuation of the holding according to rule 157 does not prohibit valuation of improvement because rule 157(d) requires determination of valuation of the share of each of the co-tenure-holders and the valuation according to rule 157 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules does not exclude valuation according to rule 159-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules which provides compensation for improvements and trees if any to be added to the price of a holding. No difference should be made out regarding valuation according to rule 157 and rule 159-a regarding valuation of improvements, therefore, the courts below have erred in not making valuation of trees and well and giving compensation to the defendant according to his share by allotting the area containing the trees and well to the lot of the plaintiff and holding that they shall be owned jointly by the parties according to their share; and thereby have defeated the very purpose of the division suit, therefore, this appeal is liable to be allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below are liable to be set aside and the case is liable to be remanded for determination valuation of trees and well according to law and for ordering compensation to the defendant in the valuation according to his share. 13. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the courts below regarding trees and well only is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for getting valuation of the trees and well worked out according to rules and to order payment of compensation to the defendant according to his share by the plaintiff in the valuation of trees and well so worked out.