King, J.

1. This revision petition relates to a suit brought by one of two reversioners for partition of the estate left by one Kannu Padayachi which had in the meanwhile been alienated by his widow Sundaram to a number of alienees. The suit was decreed in part and dismissed in part. The plaintiff asserted in his plaint that he and the twenty-eighth defendant were joint reversioners with equal rights. The twenty-eighth defendant in his written statement supported the plaintiffs case and asked that a decree might be given for his share of the property. There was, however, no decree granted in favour of the twenty-eighth defendant and shortly after the decree was passed he applied for a decree in his own favour. This was refused by the learned Subordinate Judge and the question whether that refusal was right or wrong is now before us in this petition.

2. We have been referred to two rulings which deal with a somewhat similar situation, on the earlier one of which the learned Subordinate Judge has relied in refusing the twenty-eighth defendant his request. That is reported in Adhikari Vishnumurthaiyya v. Authaiya (1918)35MLJ153 . On the other hand there is a case reported in App