- (1.) THIS is a second appeal against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur dated 13. 6. 52.
(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nim-ka-thana passed an order on 14. 11. 51 appointing a receiver in a suit for division of agricultural holding. THE appellant defendant preferred an appeal against this order which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur. It is against this order of the Additional Commis-sioner that this second appeal has been preferred. The parties were heard. The arguments of the counsel for the appellant are: - (i) that according to sec. 104 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act it is only in the course of proceedings under sec. 101 or 102 of that Act that a temporary injunction may be granted or a receiver may be appointed but as these proceedings were not under Sec. 101 or 102, the lower court has acted without jurisdiction in passing this order. (ii) that the facts of the case did not justify the appointment of a receiver. It is true that the original suit was one for division of holding but since a question of title was raised by the opposite party during the proceedings it became necessary for the lower court to decide it before deciding the question of division and a specific issue was framed to this effect. Since a question of declaration of share in the tenancy as required by sec. 101 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act was involved the lower court was fully justified in applying sec. 104 of that Act and ordering appointment of a receiver. It has been held in many cases under the U. P. Tenancy Act that if any question regarding the plaintiff's title to share in the holding arises in a suit for division of holding it can be disposed of in that very suit. It is not obligatory for a tenant to file a declaratory suit before filing a suit for division of holding. Gangaram. vs. Ramhans (1941 A. W. R. (Rev.) 1082 ). There is thus no force in this contention. As regards the other contention it relates to facts and as such we are reluctant to go into merits of the case in the second appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the order of the lower court stands. . ;