JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial) - The present second appeal is filed by Chhangey plaintiff against the defendants Danish Ali & others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Chhangey and the defendants Danish Ali, Hamid Hussain and Abid Hussain purchased, vide sale deed dated 4-6-69 from Fazal-ul Rahman, Grove plot No. 1 area 2 acres situated in village Dhulliya, Pargana Nighohi, Tahsil Tilhar District Shahjahanpur. The share of plaintiff was 1/2 while share of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was 1/2. On the basis of the sale deed S. D. O. Tilhar on 11-11-70 directed the mutation of their names over this plot. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 on 20-11-70 entered into a private partition vide deed Ex. Ka-1 by which western half portion was given to the plaintiff and the western half portion was given to the defendants. Lekhpal had subdivided this plot No. 1 into two equal plots as 1/1 and 1/2 and entered plot No. 1/1 in the separate khata of the plaintiff Chhangey and plot No. 1/2 in the separate khata of the defendants since 1378-F. Both these separate khatas continued till the date of suit which suit was filed on 18-11-77 by the plaintiff for the declaration that he and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are co-bhumidhars of plot No. 1 and that the creation of two separate khatas in the name of plaintiff and defendants was illegal. The defendants on the basis of the private partition justified the creation of the separate khatas. The trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 24-7-82 but the Additional Commissioner Bareilly vide his order dated 4-3-83 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding private partition as duly proved and good in law. Against this judgment the present second appeal is filed by plaintiff in this court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the land in suit being less than 3.18 acre it could not have actually been partitioned in view of the provision of Section 178 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The actual partition of 2 acres land between the parties was forbidden by law and such agreement of private partition was illegal and void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. He relied on A.I.R. 1975 Allahabad 166. The actual partition of 2 acres land between the parties was forbidden by law and such agreement of private partition was illegal and void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. He relied on A.I.R. 1975 Allahabad 166. He further argued that though there is no specific prohibition in Section 178 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act regarding private partition of holding of less than 3.18 acre but the intention of the legislature is clear by the report of select committee and impliedly such private partition are prohibited. He argued that the private partition being illegal and void, the plaintiff and defendant 1 to 3 are still cotenant's of plot No. 1 though the lekhpal prepared separate khatas of the parties showing plot No. 1/1 area 1 acre in the name of the plaintiff and 1/2 area 1 acre in the name of defendants 1 to 3. 4. Now the question before me is whether Section 178 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act prohibits private partition of the holding of less than 3.18 acre. 5. Section 178 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act provides that whenever in a suit for division a Court finds that the aggregate area of the holding or holdings to be divided does not exceed three and one-eight acres, the court shall instead of proceeding to divide the holding or holdings, direct the sale of same and distribution of proceeds thereof, in accordance with such principles as may be prescribed. It simply prescribed the mode of division by the court. In the very section under sub-clause (3) actual partition of holding of 3.18 acres is prescribed, if any co-sharers had acquired bhumidhari rights under Section 134 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act while remaining co-sharers continued as sirdar's. In a case where the co-tenant had let out a share in the holding under sub-section 2 of Section 157 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act being, a disabled person the holding is actually to be partitioned and the share of such co-tenant is to be separated. It is nowhere provided in the section that the parties cannot enter into the private partition among themselves. It is nowhere provided in the section that the parties cannot enter into the private partition among themselves. If holding is less than 3.18 acre in area, the provision of Section 178 of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act are not made applicable before the consolidation authorities as provided under Section 12-B of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The consolidation authorities can actually partition the holding between co-sharers irrespective of the fact whether the holding is of less than 3.18 acre or more than 3.18 acre in area. The report of the select committee also does not show that the intention of the legislature was to prohibit even private partition of such holding. Had he intention of the legislature that no co-sharer after partition should hold a holding of less than 3.18 acre, legislature could have specifically provided that if by partition the share of a co-tenant becomes less than 3.18 acre the holding would not be actually partitioned. But there is no such provision under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893, even Civil Courts are given, powers, to order sale of property in a partition suit instead of actual division in appropriate cases. Under Section 178 U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, the legislature has specified, the area of the holding as the basis of this discretion given to Civil Court under Section 2 of the Partition Act. The private partition among co-shares was never prohibited. 6. I accordingly hold that the private partition of holding between co-sharers, even if area is less than 3.18 acres is not prohibited by law. Such partition is not void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. In such circumstances the ruling Abdul Hamid v. Mohammed Ishaq, A.I.R. 1975 Allahabad 166, is of no help to the appellant. 7. The result is that is no force in the present second appeal which is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.