Miller, J.

1. The District Judge bases his decision on the ground that the plaintiff and defendants are co-owners in the Parambas on which the Plaintiff has paid the land revenue, but the allegations in the plaint do not seem to support this view. The Plaintiff ip the plaint alleges that the defendants are by a karar which is not on the record, owners in Jenm right of one of the three parambas contained in the survey-field in question and that he himself is the owner in Jenm right of the. other two. The Plaintiff does not claim any interest in the paramba of defendants, nor admits that the defendants have any interest in his parambas.

2. The District Munsiff gave him leave to amend his plaint and on the Karar by which the parambas were divided but he failed to take advantage of the opportunity so given. If then the District Judges order is to be supported it must be on the ground that the fact that the Survey field is undivided for purposes of the assessment of the land revenue upon it, brings the case within the rule established so far as we are concerned by the Full Bench of this Court in Rajah of Vizianagaram v. Rajah Setrucherla Somasekhara-raz (1902) I.L.R.25 M. 581.

3. N