MISRA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Bhura and the vendor of the respondent Chhotu admittedly are owners of undivided agricultural land comprising an area of 39 Bighas 3 Biswas of land. Chhotu executed a sale-deed in favour of the respondents to the extent of half share of land in the joint holding. A dispute cropped up between the parties wherein the petitioner's claim that infact his brother Chhotu had no right to execute a sale-deed in favour of the respondents to the extent of half share as he was entitled to only one-third share. Several proceedings for injunction were initiated between the parties and finally a Receiver was appointed to the entire land of 39 Bighas and 3 Biswas of land which went upto the stage of Board of Revenue who confirmed the order passed by the S. D. O. and the Revenue Appellate Authority regarding appointment of Receiver in regard to the entire land of 39 Bighas and 3 Biswas.
(2.) MR. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner initially challenged the appointment of Receiver in regard to the land in question and contended that the courts below had no authority to pass an order directing delivery of possession of the suit land to the Receiver and the said order is beyond jurisdiction. Although the contention is not without merit, yet I do no propose to enter into this question for the reason that the Receiver has already taken possession of the entire land of 39 Bighas and 3 Biswas of land. MR. Jain thereafter further contended that even as per the case of the purchaser-respondent, they are claiming only half of the suit proper-ty and according to the petitioners at the most Chhotu could have executed a sale-deed in favour of the respondents to the extent of one-third one and yet the court below has appointed, Receiver in regard to the entire suit land. The position thus clearly emerges that even as per the case of the petitioners, they are entitled to only two-third share of the land in question and if the petitioners succeed the respondents would yet be entitled to one-third share but according to the respondents they would be entitled to half of the land. Therefore, from these facts it is clear that even as per the case of the petitioners the respondents are entitled to one-third share as as per the case of the respondents, the petitioners are entitled to half share and not two third share as asserted by them. Thus the disputed area would be confined to only one-sixth share which would be 6 Bighas and 10. 5 biswas which is equivalent to one-sixth share. To clarify it further, the petitioners would be entitled to half share and the respondents would be entitled to one-third share and the disputed area would be one-sixth share which would be 6 Bighas and 10. 5 Biswas. In my opinion therefore, the court below before passing an order of appointment of Receiver ought to have taken care of this aspect of the matter and hence although this court refuses to interfere with the order of appointment of Receiver yet it is clarified that the Receiver shall continue in posse-ssion of the property only to the extent of one-sixth share confined to 6 Bighas and 10. 5 Biswas which is the disputed share. The identification of the land shall be made by the Receiver and the receivership beyond this area shall be released from the custody of the Receiver to be enjoyed by the petitioners and the respondents to the extent of half and one-third share of the entire joint holding. Subject to this modification in the order of the Board of Revenue, Revenue Appellate Authority as well as the S. D. O. , the writ petition stands disposed of. .;