JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut on 11-3-80 in Appeal no. 234 of 1978/district Bulandshahr. 2. It appears that Pooran Singh and others fled an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner against the preliminary decree which was passed in respect of Suit no. 134 of 1978 under Section 176 of U.P. Act I of 1951. The preliminary decree was passed on 29-7-78. The learned Additional Commissioner is of the view that there is no provision in law for preferring an appeal against a preliminary decree passed in a suit under Section 176. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. Mr. B. D. Tripathi appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the decisions referred to in the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, relate to the period when under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure the proceedings used to be taken before the civil Court and the matter used to be referred to the Collector for determining the rent to be paid to the Government or for separation of the shares. Section 54 C.P.C. reads as under :- "54. Where the decree is for the partition of an undivided estate assessed to the payment of revenue to the Government, or for the separate possession of a share of such an estate, the partition of the estate or the separation of the share shall be made by the Collector or any gazetted subordinate of the Collector deputed by him in this behalf, in accordance with the law (if any) for the time being in force relating to the partition, or the separate possession of shares, of such estates." He further submits that now the position has changed and a suit for division of Holding under Section 176 is to be taken before the revenue Courts and as such the decision reported in 1966 R.D. 146 is not applicable to the instant case, and consequently, the decision reported in 1971 R.D. 15 is also not applicable. He further submits that in a partition suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act I of 1951, two decrees are passed, one is called a 'preliminary' decree by which shares of the parties are determined, and the other is 'final' decree by which shares are divided by preparing lots. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that till date there is no provision under Section 176 for preparation of a preliminary decree, and if an appeal is allowed to be preferred against a preliminary decree, the matter is kept pending for long and it becomes of no avail to the parties. He further says that the intention of the Legislature was not at all for preparing a preliminary decree in a suit under Section 176. If at all it had any such intention, it should have specifically provided under the Act or made rules thereunder. He has drawn my attention to Rule 159 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules wherein it has been specifically mentioned that if a division is to be made in view of provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 178, then that order was to be termed as a 'decree', and the word 'preliminary decree' was not used for that also. 6. The word 'decree' has been defined in Section 2 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure. Relying on the provisions contained in Section 97 C.P.C., the learned counsel for the appellants submits that if no appeal is preferred against a preliminary decree, an opportunity for assailing that decree will not be available in an appeal preferred against the final decree. Section 97, C.P.C. reads as under: "97. Where any party aggrieved by a preliminary decree passed after commencement of this Code does appeal from such decree, he shall be precluded from disputing its correctness in any appeal which may be preferred from the final decree." 7. Upto this stage there is no dispute or disagreement between the counsels of the parties. The only question in regard to which there is disagreement is that no preliminary decree should be prepared in a suit for division of holding, as is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. I find that a suit for division of holding is filed under Section 176 of U.P. Act I of 1951. The mode of division of holding is contained under Section 178 of Act I of 1951. I find that a suit for division of holding is filed under Section 176 of U.P. Act I of 1951. The mode of division of holding is contained under Section 178 of Act I of 1951. In Section 182-B it has been provided that subject to the provisions of Sections 178 to 182, the division of a holding or the separation of the share therein of a bhumidhar shall be made by the court in accordance with the principles that may be prescribed.' These principles have been prescribed under Rules 156 to 164 of the rules framed under the Act. In Rule 159 it has been provided that 'any order for sale made by the court under sub-section (1) of Section 178 shall be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.' At this stage the learned counsel for the respondents submits that if the Legislature had any intention to term the declaration of shares of parties to be a decree, then it should have specific rules. Since the Legislature has not done so, therefore, an order declaring shares of parties will not be termed to be a preliminary decree. 8. Rule 157 of U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules provides as under :- "157 Before making a division the court shall - (a) Determine separately the share of the plaintiff and each of the other co-tenure-holders. (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-holders." From this, it is evident that the first course that a revenue Court has to adopt before making a division of holding is to determine the shares of the parties, and if the aggregate area of the holding or holdings to be divided does not exceed three and one-eighth 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 the principles as have been prescribed in Rules 159-A to 164 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Rules. From this, it is evident that the shares of the parties will be decided first and thereafter further action could be taken by the court, either proceeding with the sale if the area to be divided does not exceed three and one-eighth acres, or to separate the holdings if they are within permissible limits. This determination of shares is termed as 'preliminary decree', and the separation of lots are decided thereafter. Since the question of shares is decided and no appeal could lie against this decision in view of provisions contained in Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am of the opinion that an appeal will lie against that order by which the shares of parties are decided and a preliminary decree is prepared. 9. With this observation, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner date 11-3-80 is set aside, and the matter is sent back to him for deciding the appeal on merits within three months of the receipt of this order. Parties shall appear before the learned Additional Commissioner on 27-3-1987.