Hon'ble JAIN-I, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Special Appeal is directed against order of learned Single Bench dated 18.12.2010 and it arises out of an order passed on an application for appointment of Receiver under Section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act over land in dispute. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 4, Smt. Gayatri filed a revenue suit for partition and injunction against appellants namely Bhanwar Lal, Mukesh Kumar and one Brij Mohan in the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, wherein it was pleaded that there is an agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 1206, measuring 0.03 hectare; Khasra No. 1207, measuring 5.57 hectares, total two Kita, measuring 5.60 hectares situated in Village Pachar, District Sikar, which was in joint kahtedari of Defendant No. 1, Bhanwar Lal and Ramsahai. Ramsahai expired and his land was mutated in the name of his legal representatives namely Gayarsi Lal, Brij Mohan, Shashi Kumar, Babulal and Smt. Shashikala. The plaintiff has purchased 1/10th-1/10th share from four legal representatives of late Shri Ramsahai, except share of Brij Mohan and possession of land of Brij Mohan, i.e. 1/10th share, was also handed over by Gayarsilal, one of the legal representatives of Ramsahai, therefore, she has purchased 1/2 share of the disputed land and she is in possession thereof. It was also pleaded that there was an oral partition of land between Bhanwarlal and Ramsahai and as per oral partition, Ramsahai was in possession of land towards eastern side, therefore, the plaintiff is also in possession of eastern side of land. Since defendants were interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, therefore, she filed the present suit for partition and injunction, wherein interim injunction was granted on 26.09.2005, but despite injunction order granted by the Court, the defendants were interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, therefore, it became necessary for the plaintiff to file an application under Section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for appointment of receiver over the land in dispute during pendency of the suit . 4. 4. The application for appointment of receiver was contested by Defendant No. 1, Bhanwar Lal by filing reply to application, wherein, it was submitted that in the land in dispute, Bhanwar Lal is having 1/3rd share, Gyarsilal, Babulal, Shashi Kumar, Brij Mohan and Shashikala, all legal heirs of deceased Ram Sahai are having 1/3rd share and Surendra Kumar, Rajendra and Mukesh Sajjan, all sons of deceased of Jagdish Prasad are having 1/3 share. Defendant No. 1 Bhanwar Lal, Ramsahai and Jagdish were joint Khatedars of land in dispute and they were having 1/3 share each in the same. After the death of Jagdish, his legal representatives are in possession of his share. The applicant/plaintiff is not in possession of any part of disputed land. It was also pleaded that vendors were not in possession of land in dispute at the time of execution of sale deed, therefore, question of possession of the purchaser over the disputed land does not arise. In the additional plea, it was pleaded that there was a joint family of Bhanwar Lal and his two brothers namely Ramsahai and Jagdish Prasad. Bhanwar Lal and his two brothers Ramsahai and Jagdish Prasad were having their joint business in Mumbai and Jalgaon and from their joint business income and funds, the land in dispute was purchased on 09.06.1966. It was also pleaded that agriculture land bearing Khasra Nos. 282, 383, 385 and 365 total measuring 22 Bighas and 3 Biswas was purchased on 09.06.1966 by Bhanwarlal and his two brothers Jagdish and Ramsahai out of their joint business income and funds. New khasara numbers of the above land purchased in 1966 are 1206 and 1207. Ramsahai and Jagdish both have died. The land in dispute is being cultivated by Defendant No. 1 Bhanwar Lal and Surendra, Rajendra, Mukesh, sons of Jagdish. The applicant has purchased the part of the said undivided land through registered sale deed without possession thereof, therefore, no question arises for appointment of any receiver over the disputed land. It was also pleaded that Mukesh etc. had already filed a suit in the same Court about their rights, prior to filing of the present suit by the applicant/plaintiff. 5. It was also pleaded that Mukesh etc. had already filed a suit in the same Court about their rights, prior to filing of the present suit by the applicant/plaintiff. 5. The Defendant/Non-Applicant No. 3, Mukesh Kumar also filed his separate reply to application for appointment of receiver and reiterated the same facts, which were mentioned in the reply to application filed by non-applicant No. 1, Bhanwar Lal. 6. Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh vide its order dated 12.07.2006 dismissed the application for appointment of the receiver. The applicant, Smt. Gayatri Devi filed an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar against order dated 12.07.2006. Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar vide its judgment dated 15.05.2007 disposed off the appeal directing that non-applicants will deposit Rs. 45,000/- till 31.05.2007 and in case the non-applicants/defendants fail to deposit the said amount of Rs. 45,000/-, then Tehsildar, Dantaramgarh is appointed as a receiver over the land in dispute and he shall take possession of the disputed land and will manage it. It was also clarified that this amount of Rs. 45,000/- will be in respect of 2/5th share purchased by the plaintiff through registered sale deed, but in case the amount is not deposited then receiver will be appointed over the entire land. Non-applicants were also directed to deposit Rs. 45,000/- every year by 31st May during pendency of the suit. It is also relevant to mention that on the request of learned counsel for the respondents, operation of the judgment was stayed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar till 31.05.2007. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment dated 15.05.2007 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, the present appellants, Bhanwar Lal and Mukesh Kumar filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 08.07.2008. Thereafter, the appellants preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12543/2008 before Single Bench of this Court. Learned Single Bench vide order dated 18.12.2010 partly allowed the writ petition and modified the order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue to the extent that on failure of deposit of Rs. 45,000/-, the receiver shall be appointed only on 2/5th of the total land and the petitioners shall pay the amount of Rs. Learned Single Bench vide order dated 18.12.2010 partly allowed the writ petition and modified the order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue to the extent that on failure of deposit of Rs. 45,000/-, the receiver shall be appointed only on 2/5th of the total land and the petitioners shall pay the amount of Rs. 45,000/- every year for cultivating such land to Tehsildar concerned, who shall on deposit of the required amount every year, deposit the same in FDR for a period of one year which shall be renewable for the spell of another one year in every such span, if in the meantime, the civil suit filed by the petitioners is not decided. The payment of such amount shall finally abide by the judgment and decree passed by Civil Court. Being aggrieved with the order of learned Single Bench, the appellants have preferred this special appeal. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that land in dispute was purchased way back in the year 1966 from joint business income of Bhanwar Lal and his two brothers namely Ramsahai and Jagdish and all the three brothers were having their 1/3rd share each in it. Ramsahai and Jagdish both have died about 20 years ago. Ramsahai or his legal representatives never came into possession of the land in dispute. Their names had not been shown in the voter list and ration card; they were doing their business at Mumbai and Jalgaon. Ramsahai was son of Ram Chandra and real brother of Bhanwar Lal and Jagdish, but since Manna Lal, the Uncle(Tau) of Bhanwar Lal died issueless and as per custom, Pagdi was tide on Ramsahai, therefore, Ramsahai started writing his father’s name as Manna Lal, but he was never adopted by Manna Lal. The land in dispute remained in possession of Bhanwar Lal and legal representatives of Jagdish, therefore, legal representatives of Ramsahai had no right to sell their share and Smt. Gayatri Devi, the applicant had no right to purchase the land in dispute without any division of the same. The land in dispute remained in possession of Bhanwar Lal and legal representatives of Jagdish, therefore, legal representatives of Ramsahai had no right to sell their share and Smt. Gayatri Devi, the applicant had no right to purchase the land in dispute without any division of the same. It was further submitted that even if Respondent No. 4, Smt. Gayatri Devi has purchased the undivided share from four legal representatives of Ramsahai, then at the most she can acquire right to file a suit for partition, but she cannot be given any possession till the suit, so filed by her, is decreed in her favour by metes and bounds, as the appellants are in actual physical possession of land in dispute. In these circumstances, Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Board of Revenue both committed an illegality in directing the appellants to deposit Rs. 45,000/- every year in respect of 2/5th share of land, which has been purchased by Smt. Gayatri Devi, failing which the receiver will be appointed on the entire land. However, learned Single Bench has modified the order to the extent that receiver will be appointed only on 2/5th of total land but simultaneously it has also been directed that appellants will also deposit Rs. 45,000/-. In these circumstances, the impugned orders passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Revenue Board and learned Single Bench are liable to be set aside and application for appointment of receiver is also liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 defended the impugned orders and submitted that Ramsahai and Bhanwar Lal were co-tenants. Four legal representatives of Ramsahai have sold their share through registered sale deed; 1/5th share belonging to one legal representative of Ramsahai has also been handed over by Gyarasilal, another legal representative of Ramsahai, therefore, Respondent No. 4, Smt. Gayatri Devi is in possession of the land in dispute. It has been further submitted that there was an oral partition between Bhanwar Lal and Ramsahai and Ramsahai was in possession of land towards eastern side, therefore, land in dispute, which has been purchased, is identifiable and on the same land, receiver has been ordered to be appointed. It has been further submitted that there was an oral partition between Bhanwar Lal and Ramsahai and Ramsahai was in possession of land towards eastern side, therefore, land in dispute, which has been purchased, is identifiable and on the same land, receiver has been ordered to be appointed. It was further submitted that since defendants were interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, despite injunction order passed in her favour, therefore, she moved an application for appointment of receiver, which was rightly appointed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was also submitted that Revenue Appellate Authority has directed the defendants to make the payment of Rs. 45,000/- and only on failure of the said amount, the receiver will be appointed on the entire land. It is, therefore, submitted that in case a sum of Rs. 45,000/- is deposited by the appellants, then the receiver will not be appointed. The learned Single Bench has already modified the order and has clarified that receiver will be appointed only on 2/5th of the total land in dispute. He, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in this appeal and the same may be dismissed. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the orders passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh, Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar, Board of Revenue and learned Single Bench. A copy of the order dated 03.05.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, No. 2, Sikar passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 11/2006 has also been placed on record, which has also been examined by us. 10. It appears that there is a dispute between the parties in respect of agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 1206, measuring 0.03 hectare and Khasra No. 1207, measuring 5.57 hectares, total two kita, measuring 5.60 hectares situated in Village Pachar, District Sikar. According to applicant, Smt. Gayatri Devi, land in dispute was purchased by Bhanwar Lal and Ramsahai in the year 1966 and both were having 1/2 share in the same. Ramsahai has died leaving behind his five legal representatives and out of five, four legal representatives have sold their share to applicant though registered sale deed. The possession of 1/10th share of 5th legal representative of Ramsahai has also been handed over by Gayarsilal, another legal representative of Ramsahai, therefore, the applicant is in possession of 1/2 share of land in dispute. 11. The possession of 1/10th share of 5th legal representative of Ramsahai has also been handed over by Gayarsilal, another legal representative of Ramsahai, therefore, the applicant is in possession of 1/2 share of land in dispute. 11. As per pleadings of non-applicant/Defendant No. 1, Bhanwar Lal, the land in dispute was purchased in the year 1966 by Bhanwar Lal and his two brothers namely Ramsahai and Jagdish. Ramsahai and Jagdish both died about 20 years ago, therefore, land in dispute is in 1/3rd share of Bhanwar Lal, 1/3rd share of legal representatives of Ramsahai and 1/3rd share of Jagdish. However, Ramsahai and his legal representatives never came in village and they never remained in possession of land in dispute, therefore, land in dispute remained in possession of Bhanwar Lal and legal representatives of Jagdish. Ramsahai was never adopted by Manna Lal, uncle of Bhanwar Lal, but after death of Manna Lal, since as per custom, Pagdi was tide on Ramsahai, therefore, Ramsahai started writing his father’s name as Manna Lal. The land in dispute has not been partitioned and it is still undivided, therefore, till a decree of partition is passed and actual physical possession of particular portion of land is handed over, all Khatedars will be presumed to be in possession of each and every corner of the land in dispute. The suit for partition and injunction has been filed by the applicant, Smt. Gayatri Devi and she is not in possession of the land in dispute. At present, Smt. Gayatri Devi, purchaser, is a stranger and under the garb of sale deed, she wants to dispossess the original kahtedar of the land. 12. Hon'ble Apex Court in M.V.S. Manikayala Rao V. M. Narasimhaswami and Others, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 470 observed that it is well settled that the purchaser of a coparcener's undivided interest in joint family property is not entitled to possession of what he has purchased. His only right is to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment to him of that which on partition might be found to fall to the share of the coparcener whose share he had purchased. 13. His only right is to sue for partition of the property and ask for allotment to him of that which on partition might be found to fall to the share of the coparcener whose share he had purchased. 13. In Subhod Kumar and Others vs. Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre, (2007) 10 SCC 571 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that purchaser of a particular portion of land of joint property of joint family acquires only a right to file a suit for partition or a claim of consequential relief of demarcation of the claimed portion by metes and bounds. Purchaser acquires only undivided interest of the transferor in the joint property. He does not acquire title to any defined share in the property and was not entitled to joint possession from date of their purchase. Purchaser can work out its rights only by a suit for partition and their right to possession would date from the period when a specific allotment was made in their favour. 14. In Hardeo Rai vs. Sakuntala Devi and Others, (2008) 7 SCC 46 , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even a coparcenary interest can be transferred subject to the condition that the purchaser without the consent of other coparceners cannot get possession of what he has purchased. Such a purchaser, however, acquires a right to sue for partition. 15. The Revenue Appellate Authority in its judgment dated 15.05.2007, in Para 12, has observed that “it is a settled law that the stranger-purchaser will get possession only on partition, but it does not mean that in its guise, the co-tenant, who has not sold the land, will get the benefit of the land, which has been sold by a co-tenant to purchaser. If it is so, then there will be irreparable injury to the purchaser.” In our considered view, the approach of the Revenue Appellate Authority is absolutely not tenable in the eye of law. It is a settled law that purchaser becomes entitled to file a suit for partition and till a decree of partition is passed in favour of the purchaser, she is not entitled to possession of land. Therefore, at this stage no order can be passed against co-tenant and no receiver can be appointed over purchased land. It is a settled law that purchaser becomes entitled to file a suit for partition and till a decree of partition is passed in favour of the purchaser, she is not entitled to possession of land. Therefore, at this stage no order can be passed against co-tenant and no receiver can be appointed over purchased land. In case, she has purchased share of any undivided land, then at the most she acquires the right to file a suit for partition, but she cannot claim possession directly, without any decree of partition by metes and bounds in her favour. It is not in dispute that land has not been mutated in Revenue Record in the name of Smt. Gayatri on the basis of sale deed dated 19.09.2005. It is only by way of decree of partition that her share can be identified and purchaser comes in possession, but in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the applicant filed a suit for partition and injunction. Although, the applicant has pleaded that there was an oral partition between Bhanwar Lal and Ramsahai and Ramsahai was in possession of land towards eastern side, but this fact has been disputed by non-applicants, therefore, it cannot be said to be an admitted fact. It is a settled law that the purchaser, under the guise of sale deed, cannot dispossess the original owners from the land in dispute. Till the land in dispute is divided by a decree of partition by metes and bounds, the original tenants will remain in possession of each and every corner of the land in dispute. Till date no decree has been passed in favour of the applicant, Smt. Gayatri Devi. The amount of mesne profit can be awarded at the time of decreeing the suit, if the same is claimed but not during the pendency of the suit. In these circumstances, learned Revenue Appellate Authority committed an illegality in directing that the non-applicants will deposit Rs. 45,000/- and in case, they fail to deposit the same, then receiver will be appointed on the entire land. The Board of Revenue also committed an illegality in confirming the order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority. Learned Single Bench although has clarified that receiver will be appointed on 2/5th of the total land, but which will be 2/5th of the total land is not identifiable. The Board of Revenue also committed an illegality in confirming the order passed by Revenue Appellate Authority. Learned Single Bench although has clarified that receiver will be appointed on 2/5th of the total land, but which will be 2/5th of the total land is not identifiable. Learned Single Bench has also directed the non-applicants to deposit Rs. 45,000/- every year. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Bench is illegal and self contradictory. In these circumstances, orders passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Board of Revenue and the Single Bench cannot be allowed to be sustained. 16. It is also relevant to mention that Defendant/Non-Applicant No. 1, Bhanwar Lal filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed executed by legal representatives of Ramsahai in favour of applicant, Smt. Gayatri Devi on 19.09.2005 in the Court of Additional District Judge, No. 2, Sikar, wherein it was pleaded by him that land in dispute was purchased by Bhanwar Lal and his two brothers Ramsahai and Jagdish, out of their common business funds and all the three brothers were having 1/3rd share each in the said land, therefore, Ramsahai was having only 1/3rd share and not 1/2 share, as alleged in the sale deed. It was also pleaded that Ramsahai or his legal representatives never remained in possession of land in dispute, as they never came to village, their names have not been shown in the voter list or the ration card. They were residing in Mumbai and Jalgaon in connection with their business. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. Learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Sikar while considering the application and deciding the issue relating to prima facie case, observed that there is a triable issue in the matter that as to whether legal representatives of Ramsahai are having 1/3rd share or 1/2 share in the land in dispute. It has also referred the evidence adduced by plaintiff, Bhanwar Lal including documentary evidence to show that Ramsahai was having only 1/3rd share and not 1/2 share, whereas four out of five legal representatives of Ramsahai have executed sale deed in favour of Smt. Gayatri Devi in respect of 2/5th share of the land. Additional District Judge, No. 2, Sikar has also referred the case laws to the effect that the stranger/purchaser can be restrained by way of permanent injunction from any interference in undivided land of co-tenants. Additional District Judge, No. 2, Sikar has also referred the case laws to the effect that the stranger/purchaser can be restrained by way of permanent injunction from any interference in undivided land of co-tenants. Learned Additional District Judge, No. 2, Sikar vide its order dated 03.05.2007 decided prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff-Bhanwar Lal and allowed his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. and restrained the defendants, who were legal representatives of Ramsahai as well as Jagdish and directed them to maintain status quo in respect of record as well as spot i.e. possession of land in dispute during pendency of the suit. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 has not placed on record any contrary order to the above order dated 03.05.2007 passed by Civil Court. 17. Learned Sub Division Officer, Dantaramgarh, while considering application under Section 212(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for appointment of receiver, referred the order dated 03.05.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, No. 2, Sikar and observed that since an injunction order has been passed by Civil Court i.e. Additional District Judge No. 2, Sikar in respect of possession of land at the spot and record, therefore, no receiver over the land in dispute can be appointed. In our view, learned Sub Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh was absolutely justified in not appointing the receiver over the land in dispute in the fact and circumstances of the present case, particularly in view of the order passed by Additional District Judge, No. 2, Sikar, as referred above. 18. Even otherwise also, we are satisfied that the applicant/Respondent No. 4 was not entitled to get the receiver appointed over undivided land of co-tenants. The appointment of receiver in the present case, on failure of deposit of Rs. 45,000/-, was absolutely unwarranted. 19. In view of above discussions, we allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by Revenue Appellate Authority, Revenue Board and learned Single Bench and restore the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Dantaramgarh. 20. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.