JUDGMENT Dalal, J.
1. In my opinion the learned District Judge has taken the correct view of the law on the subject. The plaintiff is the owner of about half share in a certain khewat and sued the defendant, the other co-sharer, for rendition of account and recovery of balance due to him. It so happens that the plaintiff is purchaser of the share of one Chandan who was the original proprietor and held all the land in sir. Chandan on the sale of his property became ex proprietary tenant and a rent of Rs. 26 was then fixed for his holding. The defendant does not hold sir land but collects rent to the extent of Rs. 92 from tenants for the balance of the land. The plaintiff's claim was that he should obtain half of Rs. 26 plus Rs. 92 after giving deduction for Rs. 26 realized by him. The learned District Judge accepted this position as correct. The defendant has appealed and on his behalf it was argued here that the plaintiff should be satisfied with the rent which he received from the ex-proprietor. Such a view is distinctly negatived by the Full Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Debi Pershad v. Bhagwan Din 16 Ind. Cas. 399 : 10 A.L.J. 437 : 35 A. 27. It was held there that an ex-proprietary tenant was not a tenant of the one particular proprietor who purchased the sir land but was a tenant of the whole proprietary body. Following this ruling Chandan is a tenant both of the plaintiff and the defendant, and similarly the other tenants would be tenants of both the parties. The parties will, therefore, be entitled to divide the rents of Chandan as well as of the other tenants between themselves.
2. Mr. Panna Lal, the learned Counsel for the appellant, referred me to a Bench ruling in the case of Bhagwant v. Arjun 32 Ind. Cas. 617 : 14 A.L.J. 209. There all the proprietors were sir-holders. In the present case if the defendant had been a sir-holder of the land it is obvious that there would have been no need for a settlement of account between the parties.
3. I dismiss the appeal with costs.