JUDGMENT Sen, J.
1. The sole point argued in this appeal is that the declaratory suit instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents offends against the provisions of Section 233-K, Land Revenue Act (Act 3 of 1901 local). Durga Singh had three sons Abhairaj Singh, Rajbali Singh and Gobind Singh. These were members of a joint Hindu family. Abhairaj Singh died leaving a widow Mt. Sahodra Kunwar who is defendant 1 in the suit. He had a son Ram Surat Singh. Ram Surat Singh died first, Ram Bali died next and Gobind Singh died last. Certain property was recorded in the revenue papers in the name of Mt. Sahodra Kunwar who had no legal title to the said property by right of inheritance under the Hindu law her right being confined to mere maintenance and. no more. Gobind Singh applied for partition in the revenue Court and prayed that the share belonging to him which stood recorded in the name of Rajbali Singh and Mt. Sahodra Kunwar should be partitioned and formed into a separate patti. The revenue Court allowed a, partition on these terms with the result that a separate patti was formed in the names of Gobind Singh, Rajbali Singh and Mt. Sahodra. There was no clash of interests between Mt. Sahodra and Gobind Singh in the revenue Court with regard to any portion of the property which became the subject of partition and which was included in the patti formed by the revenue Court. On 14th December 1925. Mt. Sahodra, executed a, sankalapnama in favour of Ram Sukh Pandey, the defendant-appellant in respect of one-third of the property which has been mentioned in Schedule B attached to the plaint. Pirthi Singh, uncle of Gobind Singh, Sarju Singh and Rambali Singh who are his first cousins instituted the present suit for a declaration that Mt. Sahodra Kunwar had no proprietary interest in the property in dispute and that no rights devolved upon Ram Sukh Pandey by virtue of the. sankalapnama referred to above.
2. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that it was not maintainable under Section 233-K, Land Revenue Act. The Court of first instance overruled this plea and granted the plaintiffs a decree. The lower appellate Court has affirmed the decree; hence this appeal by Ram Sukh Pandey, the donee.
3. Section 233-K, Land Revenue Act, provides that no person shall institute any suit or other proceeding in the civil Court with respect to . . . partition or union of mahals except as provided in Sections 111 and 112.
4. The patti which has been formed at the instance of Gobind Singh is a single unit. By passing a declaratory decree in favour of the plaintiffs that Mt. Sahodra Kunwar is not the owner of the property which stands recorded in her name in the patti aforesaid the integrity of the patti or the mahal constituted by the revenue Court is in/no way approached upon. The declaratory suit therefore does not in any way , contravene the provisions of Section 233-K,' Land Revenue Act. Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this Court: In re Ganga Prasad v. Beni Prasad [1930] A.L.J. 601. The facts of this case were toto caelo different. In this case the plaintiff had applied for the formation of a separate patti by partition by the revenue Court relating to certain property and no prayer was made for the inclusion of the share which was claimed by the defendant vendees under a certain sale deed. It was held that where the plaintiff himself had applied to the revenue Court for the constitution of a separate patti of his share and had impleaded the defendants-vendees in the partition proceedings but had omitted to include the share which the defendants claimed under a deed of transfer, it was not open-to the plaintiff to institute, a suit in a civil Court for that portion of the property which had been allotted to the defendant vendees and put into a separate patti. We are clearly of opinion that Section 233-K, Land Revenue Act, is no bar to the present suit and the claim has been rightly decreed by the Courts below. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.