JUDGMENT Banerji and Aikman, JJ.
1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by Lohre, appellant, against Deo Hans, respondent, for arrears of rent for the years 1309 to 1312 Fasli. The plaintiff joined as a defendant to the suit Sita Ram, respondent, who, he said, was his co-sharer and had refused to join in bringing the suit. The Court of first instance dismissed the claim as against Deo Hans and decreed it against Sita Ram. The plaintiff acquiesced in this decree and did not appeal against that part of it which dismissed his claim against Deo Hans. Sita Ram appealed, making the plaintiff and Deo Hans respondents to the appeal. The lower appellate Court decreed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal, and contends that the Court below ought to have made a decree in his favour against Deo Hans. This contention is untenable. The plaintiff having submitted to the decree of the first Court dismissing the claim against Deo Hans, and there being no appeal by the plaintiff against Deo Hans, the appellate Court could not on the appeal of Sita Ram make a decree in favour of one respondent against the other. Several rulings having been cited to us, but the case most in point is that of Farzand Ali Khan v. Bismillah Begam (1904) I.L.R. 27 All. 23. This ruling is against the appellant. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.