JUDGMENT Richards, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed to be put into possession of 2 bighas, 10 biswas and 16 dhuris of land held at a fixed rate to the extent of half of 5 bighas, 1 biswa and 12 dhuris. It appears that a certain fixed rate tenancy was held by the descendants of one Sewak Singh in equal shares. One Roste Singh represented one moiety and Kalka Singh and others represented the other moiety In the year 1893, Roste Singh sold to the plaintiffs one moiety of the tenancy and in the year 1897 Kalka Singh and others sold to the plaintiffs half of 19 bighas, 7 biswas, 5 dhuris. The defendants-respondents, Jokhu and Ram Charan, claim under a mortgage with possession, made in the year 1896 by the same parties as those who had made the second sale in favour of the plaintiffs, that is to say, Kalka Singh and others. The mortgage was a mortgage of 5 bighas, 1 biswa and 12 dhuris. The plaintiffs' claim was that the holding was a joint undivided holding and that by virtue of their first purchase in 1898 they became entitled to an undivided half of and in every part of the holding. The learned Judge had found as a matter of fact that the owners of the tenancy as between themselves divided up the holding and that each of the co-tenants was in the habit of dealing with specific plots as representing his share without paying any regard to his co-sharers. The plaintiffs themselves had got specific plots by virtue of their purchase. A specific plot was mortgaged in 1896 to Jokhu and Ram Charan and long before that specific plots were mortgaged to Nand Kunwar or his representatives. It seems to me that the tenants of the fixed rate tenancy are quite entitled as between themselves to divide the holding. Such division cannot, of course, bind or any wise prejudice the landlord. But as between themselves the division is perfectly legitimate. The Court below has found that prior to the plaintiffs' purchase in 1893 the holding had been divided. The plaintiffs who claim under Roste are bound by the division and it is quite clear that the plaintiffs' suit for possession against, Jokhu, Ram Charan and Nand Kunwar must fail. I do not decide any question of rights' as between the plaintiffs and Kalka Singh and others after the redemption of the mortgages of the respondents. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.