JUDGMENT

Allsop, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit brought in the revenue Court for a share of profits u/s 231, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. Munna Lal had a decree against Mt. Manjhli Dulaiya and as this woman's property was protected from sale under the Bundelkhand Land Alienation Act the Court transferred to Munna Lal the right to recover the rents and profits of her property for a certain period on condition that he paid half the amount to her. She had an eight anna share in the property and was to get the profits of a four anna share while Munna Lal was to get the profits of the other four annas. Thereafter Hukum Chand and Mangal Sen, the present appellants, also obtained a money decree against Mt. Manjhli Dulaiya and the decree was executed by the Court's making a so-called lease in their favour on her behalf under the terms of which Munna Lal was to pay to them the profits of two annas out of share which he was to pay by the previous arrangement to Mt. Manjhli Dulaiya. As the profits were not paid, Hukum Chand and Mangal Sen instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal. It has been dismissed upon the ground that they could not sue for profits because they were not cosharers. There was a subsidiary question whether the civil Court could grant a lease in the form in which it purported to do so, but that question has not been decided, and I express no opinion upon it. Even if the lease could not be granted it would be open to question whether either Mt. Manjhli Dulaiya or Munna Lal could now question the transaction. The only question which I have to decide is whether the revenue Court had jurisdiction to deal with the claim. The learned Assistant Collector and the lower appellate Court have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff was suing as an assignee of the profits and that an assignee is not a cosharer within the meaning of Section 231, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The appellants rely upon the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act which says that

all words and expressions used to denote the possessor of any right, title or interest in land, whether the same be proprietary or otherwise, shall be deemed to include the predecessors and successors in right, title or interest of such person.

The Courts below have relied upon the fact that the provisions of Section 229, Agra Tenancy Act, 1926, have not been reproduced in the Act of 1939. The provisions were:

The words 'lambardar,' 'cosharer,' 'muafidar,' assignee of revenue,' 'taluqdar,' and 'superior proprietor' in this chapter include also the heirs, legal representatives, executors, administrators and assigns of such persons.

The section appeared in the chapter dealing with the recovery of arrears of revenue and profits. The provisions in the new Act corresponding with the provisions of Section 229 are those in Sub-section (1) of Section 3 which I have already quoted. It is true that these provisions do not explicitly say that an assignee shall be in the same position as a cosharer, but I think myself that the terms of the sub-section are sufficiently wide to include assigns. There is nothing in those terms which justifies the conclusion that a successor must be the successor in the whole of the right, title or interest of a cosharer. Learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that a right to recover rents or profits is not an interest in land, but I cannot accept this contention. It seems to me that the right to recover the usufruct is the greater part of the interest in the land. It was held in Lallu Singh Vs. Lala Chander Sen that the assignee of a portion of an interest was an assignee within the meaning of Section 229 of the Act of 1926. The same argument applies to the provisions in the Act of 1939. A successor does not cease to be a successor if he does not acquire the whole of the right, title or interest of his predecessor. The right to recover rents or profits is undoubtedly a part of the interest of a cosharer in the land and if he choose