JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - This is second appeal against the judgment dated 1-9-83 by which the learned lower appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 27-4-70 of the trial court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant papers on record. 3. The facts in brief are that a suit under Section 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act simpliciter was filed by Basdeo Prasad for partition of division of holding. The trial court by its judgment dated 27-4-70 decreed the suit for partition and ordered for separation of share of the plaintiff. An appeal was filed against that order and that appeal was allowed by the lower appellate court and it was held that the plaintiff was not recorded tenure holder, hence he cannot file suit under Section 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act. He should have filed earlier a suit under Section 229-B of Z.A. & L.R. Act and then the suit for partition can be filed. Against this judgment of the lower appellate court the present second appeal has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that a suit under Section 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act can converted into a suit under Section 229-B of Z.A. & L.R. Act and to that effect he has filed an application. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has stated that there is no provision for converting such suit under Section 229-B of Z.A. & L.R. Act. Moreover, the appeal has rightly been decided and there is no provision for a person who is not recorded tenure holder to file a suit for division of holding. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the ruling reported in 1981 AWC (R) 52 Darshan Singh and another v. Kanwar Singh etc. and tried to rely on para 5 at page 53 of that judgment. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the ruling reported in 1981 AWC (R) 52 Darshan Singh and another v. Kanwar Singh etc. and tried to rely on para 5 at page 53 of that judgment. The relevant portion of which as follows : "Where a person not recorded as a co-tenant has already initiated a suit under Section 176, and wishes to convert it into a suit under Section 229-B/176, as such an application should ordinarily be allowed, but it will be necessary for such a party then to implead the State Government and to serve a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. for this purpose." But this observation in the relevant citation is not binding on court because two questions were referred to full bench which are as follows : "1. Whether in a suit for division of holding under Section 176 of the Z.A. & L.R. Act, where the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff, it is necessary for the plaintiff to get his suit converted into one for declaration and division under Section 229-B/176 of the Z.A. & L.R. Act, and 2. If the plaintiff is required to get his suit for division converted into a suit for declaration and division, whether State has to be given a notice under Section 80 C.P.C.? But only one question was decided which is clear from the para 7 of the judgment itself which is as follows : "Our answer to the questions referred to us is, therefore : - The first question is answered in the negative, and the second question does not arise." Hence, the para 5 of the judgment is not the finding of the Full Bench but only an observation. It is not binding. 5. Apart from this changing a suit under Section 176 into a suit under Section 229-B/176 is not in any way advisable at this stage when the suit has already been decided by the two courts below on the this point. Amendment cannot be allowed to fill up lacuna in any case. Apart from this even if an amendment is allowed, for the argument sake, it cannot be said that the order of the lower appellate court shall remain as it is and the judgment given on the declaration should be kept intact. Section 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act is very simple. Apart from this even if an amendment is allowed, for the argument sake, it cannot be said that the order of the lower appellate court shall remain as it is and the judgment given on the declaration should be kept intact. Section 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act is very simple. Its sub-section (i) is as follows: "A bhumidhar may sue for division of the holding. Hence, a person who is not recorded as bhumidhar cannot sue for division of his holding because the holding is not yet his. There is no declaration in his favour, hence he cannot file any suit under Section 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act." 6. Hence it is held that obitor dicta of any ruling is not binding. The amendment cannot be allowed to fill up lacuna. After the judgment of the two courts below it cannot be said that the amendment will have a retrospective effect and will not in any way affect the judgment of the courts below. A suit under Section 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act by a person who is not recorded as bhumidhar, cannot be filed. 7. There is no illegality or error apparent on the face of judgment of the lower appellate court. Hence, the second appeal has got no force and is hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own cost.