Krishnan, J.

The opposite party No. 1 who is a nephew of the Petitioner owned certain lands jointly with the latter. At one stage these lands were recorded in a joint holding. Later on and during the period relevant for our purpose these lands are being cultivated in different parcels by the parties separately. This is a fact admitted by both of them. The difference is that on the one hand the Petitioner Gangaram contends that this was on the basis of a final private partition by metes and bounds between the parties whereas Kanhaiyalal's contention is that this was a provisional arrangement and a final partition by metes and bounds is yet to be effected. Obviously, both the parties feel either that the lands in the separate possession of Kanhaiyalal are smaller in area or happen to be less valuable than those in possession of his uncle Gangaram. Be that as it may, the situation now is that though there is no controversy about the extent of the shares of the two parties in the holding as it originally stood which share is half and half there is a dispute as to whether what has happened and is in force at the present time is a provisional arrangement for convenience liable to