JUDGMENT

1. The Plaintiffs in this case are two-third shareholders of a certain talook. They say that there was within this talook a piece of raiyati land held by Dina Nath Singh, Kali Charan Singh, and Ram Chandra Singh, of whom Dina Nath was the recorded tenant, that Defendants 8 and 9 purchased the share of Dina Nath and Kali Charan, respectively, by two separate kobalas, and that Defendants 1 to 7 purchased the share of Ram Chandra, that the raiyati holding was not transferable and that the Plaintiffs never consented to the transfer of it. They therefore say that the Defendants are trespassers on the land and they sue for ejectment. This suit was contested by the Defendants 2 and 8, who put in separate written statements. Amongst other matters they denied that the land formed part of the Plaintiffs' talook, and Defendant No. 8 further denied that he purchased any part of Dina Nath's share.

2. The first Court dismissed the suit, holding that the Plaintiffs had not proved that this land was part of their talook or that the original tenants paid rent in respect of it. The Plaintiffs appealed against that decree, and the Subordinate Judge has reversed it declaring the Plaintiff's right to a two third share of the rent of the entire land from all the Defendants. He found that Dina Nath had not sold his share, and that there having been no abandonment of the holding by the registered tenant, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to treat the Defendants as trespassers or to get khas possession of the land.

3. Against this decree the Defendant No. 8 alone appeals and the first ground which he takes is that the suit ought to have been entirely dismissed when it is found that the Defendants were not trespassers on the land. It may be gathered from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge that but for one piece of evidence he would have concurred in the decision of the Munsif and dismissed the Plaintiffs' suit. The evidence upon which he relied was a kobala executed by Ram Chandra in favour of Defendants 2 and 7, and containing in the recital a statement that the land was part of a talook which belonged to one Krishna Mohun Chowdhury, who is father of one of the pro forma Defendants, and therefore a co sharer of the Plaintiffs.

4. It is contended before us that this document is not evidence against Defend ant 8, and cannot be received as against him as any proof of the Plaintiffs' title, and in our opinion, this contention must prevail. The Appellant does not derive his title from Ram Chandra and is not affected by any admission made by the latter. It is said, however, that the recitals in the document are admissible, because Ram Chandra was one of the co-sharers of the raiyati holding and any admission which he made in respect of the holding, would be evidence against the co-sharers or persons who claim under them. Whatever may be the case as between partners who are regarded as agents for each other in the partnership business, it cannot be said that Ram Chandra, in selling his share of the land or in any statement which he made in connection with the sale of it, was in any way acting as the agent of his co-sharers, and we do not see under what section of the Evidence Act the alleged admission contained in the recitals can be used against the Appellant. Apart from that, the Defendant No. 2, in whose favour this kobala was executed, denied that it had ever been acted upon and the Subordinate Judge has thrown upon the Defendants the onus of proving that. That was wrong, as it was clearly for the Plaintiffs, if they wished to rely upon the admission, to prove that it was contained in a document to which some effect had been given. Under any circumstances, therefore, it would have been necessary to remand the case for further enquiry on that point. But in the view we take of it, we think that a remand is unnecessary. The only question that remains is as to the form of the decree which we should make. As already stated, the suit was one to eject the