JUDGMENT H.N. Srivastava, Member. - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1984 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in appeal No. 73 of 1982 against the judgment and decree dated February 15, 1982 passed by the A.C. Ist Class, district Jaunpur in a suit No. 11 of 1981-82. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant Ram Deo has filed a suit under Section 176 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act on June 26, 1975 claiming 1/3rd share in the land in suit which includes part of the plot No. 263 forming Abadi on the spot. He further contended that out of remaining, 1/3rd share belongs to defendant Nos. 1 to 13 and 1/3rd shares belongs to defendant Nos. 14 to 19. The trial court by order dated February 15, 1982 determined the shares of the parties accordingly. Appeal was filed against the above order wherein the shares were not disputed, but it was contended by the appellant that the shares may be determined after excluding 9-1/2 dismal area from the plot No. 263 forming Abadi. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and determined shares as prayed after excluding the area of plot No. 263 constituting Abadi. Second appeal has been filed against the above order of the learned Additional Commissioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 4. The point for determination is if the partition of the joint holding is justified by excluding the Abadi area of plot No. 263. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is neither legally justified nor equitable to exclude altogether an area for the time being in use as Abadi by one of the co-tenants and then make a division of the joint holding without taking into account the excluded area. 5. I have examined the above issue in detail. The partition suit filed by Ram Deo was contested by Ram Jiawan and Nand Kishore. By their written statement dated October 30, 1975 one of the point raised by them was that a part of plot No. 263 constitutes their Abadi. 5. I have examined the above issue in detail. The partition suit filed by Ram Deo was contested by Ram Jiawan and Nand Kishore. By their written statement dated October 30, 1975 one of the point raised by them was that a part of plot No. 263 constitutes their Abadi. An issue was accordingly framed and the matter was referred to the S.D.O. concerned who by his order dated March 12, 1979 recorded his finding that 9-1/2 dismal area of the plot No. 263 constitutes Abadi. This order was contested by Ram Deo in Revision. The Revision was dismissed on July 25, 1981 by the learned Additional Commissioner. The fact, therefore, that an area of plot No. 263 measuring 9-1/2 dismal constitutes Abadi now stands as an established fact. The trial court while determining the shares including the Abadi area of plot No. 263 whereas the learned Additional Commissioner has excluded the same and has determined the parties in the remaining land. There is no dispute in respect of the shares of the respective parties. The dispute is only if the Abadi area of plot No. 263 has to be excluded or included while determining the shares in the joint holding of the respective parties. 6. The above issue can be examined from two angles. Section 143 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act provides as follows:- "Where a Bhumidhar uses his holding or part thereof for a purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming the Assistant Collector in charge of the Sub-Division may, suo motu or on an application, after making such enquiry as may be prescribed, make a declaration to that effect." "1-A. Where a declaration under sub-section (1) has to be made in respect of part of the holding, the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division may in the manner prescribed demarcate such part for the purposes of such declaration." "(2) Upon the grant of the declaration mentioned is sub-section (1) the provisions of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to Bhumidhar with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject." 7. From the reading of the above section it follows that it is only upon the grant of the declaration mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 143 of the Act, that the provision of Chapter 8th of Z.A and L.R. Act 'other than Section 143' shall cease to apply to Bhumidhar with respect to such land and thereupon be governed in the matter of devolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject. 8. Section 143 of the Act as quoted above provides that where a Bhumidhar uses his holding or part thereof "not a joint holding" for a purpose not connected with agriculture etc; he can apply for the declaration under Section 143(1) of the Act. Such declaration cannot be granted unless the holding or part thereof belongs exclusively to the said Bhumidhar. It follows that before making such a declaration the S.D.O. has to ascertain beyond all doubts that the land sought for declaration constitutes the exclusive holding of a Bhumidhar. Sub-section 1(A) of the above section further provides that where a declaration under sub-section (I) has to be made in respect of the part of the holding, the Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-division may in the manner prescribed demarcate such part for the purposes of such declaration. 9. It is thus desired not only to get ascertained that the holding regarding which declaration is sought is the exclusive holding of a Bhumidhar but it is also desirable that such a holding is specifically demarcated. In case of joint holding belonging to several co-tenants such a declaration will not be possible unless the division of that holding is done. In case such a declaration is made without the division of that joint holding that declaration cannot be held to be valid on the ground that the said land cannot conclusively be said to be the exclusive holding of the Bhumidhar concerned. 10. In my view, therefore, any declaration made under Section 143(1) of the Act without partition of the joint holding cannot be said to be legally valid and, therefore will not affect in any way the partition under Section 176 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act. In the instant case the order of the S.D.O. dated March 12, 1979 cannot be considered as declaration under Section 143 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act. In the instant case the order of the S.D.O. dated March 12, 1979 cannot be considered as declaration under Section 143 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act. During the partition proceeding before the trial court an issue was framed if part of plot No. 263 constitutes Abadi, the S.D.O. was referred with the issue and his finding that the said area 9-1/2 dismal area of plot No. 263 constitutes Abadi can only be declared as a finding of the issue referred to him and not a declaration under Section 143 of the Act. 11. A Bhumidhar does not cease to be Bhumidhar of a land if he uses it for holding or residential purposes. Section 143 of the Act empowers him to use it for any purpose whatsoever. Section 176 of the Act provides for the division of the holding of a Bhumidhar. The term holding was defined by clause 7 of Section 3 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The same definition has been adopted in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by Section 3(26) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The definition of the holding in quoted below:- "The holding means a parcel or parcels of land held under one lease, engagement of grant, or in the absence of such lease, engagement or grant under one tenure and in the case of a Thekedar includes the Theka area." The term "HOLDING" in Section 176 of Z.A. and L.R. Act will refer to the engagement under which the land is taken and as such if subsequently part of the land originally taken for agricultural purposes has been converted into Abadi, it cannot constitute in itself an interference with the original engagement and consequently a suit for the division of the holding will have to take into consideration the entire land that constitutes the holding including the land converted into Abadi. I, therefore, hold that the plot No. 263 area 9-1/2 dismal constituting Abadi cannot be excluded while partitioning the joint holding of which it is a part among the concerned co-tenants. 12. From the above considerations I set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner and restore the order of the trial court. The appeal is decided accordingly.