JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by the defendant in a suit for khas possession brought by the plaintiff on the footing that the land in dispute fell into the plaintiff's share on partition against the different defendants. The defendants admitted the partition but they say as they were no parties to it and as the partition was between the co-sharer proprietors, they the defendants, who hold sikmi taluks under another co-sharer cannot be ejected by the plaintiff unless and until he establishes affirmatively that the lands in dispute do not appertain to their sikmi taluks, which really involves the assertion that the plaintiff cannot obtain any portion of the land which was allotted to them by partition if any body chooses to say that it belongs to the sikmi taluks. But the contention in this appeal is that the onus has been wrongly thrown upon the defendants of showing that these lands really appertain to their sikmi taluks.

2. Now we do not think that this question of onus arises at all The sikmi taluks were created by the co-sharer who was the zemindar of Estate No. 96. The lands of Estate No. 96 were held jointly with the lands of Estate No.-3653, which has bean held by the predecess