Hallifa, A J C—There is no appeal and there was none in the Court of the District Judge in respect of field No. 57/1, which was originally sir land but is now apparently recorded as khudkasht because it is held by the defendant appellant Kesheorao on a lease for 99 years from a person who has no other interest in the village except the proprietary right in that field. The decision that this land must be excluded from the lands liable to partition is certainly correct, though the true state of affairs does not seem to have been realized.

2. The total area of sir and khudkasht in the village is said to be 364'39 acres. It is admitted that 107'87 acres of this were acquired by Kesheorao in certain years between 1886 and 1903, and it is in issue between the parties whether he acquired them for his own benefit or for that of the whole proprietary body. In regard to the rest he pleaded that it was divided among the co-sharers about 1860, so that each of them became separate owner of the fields allotted to him. The rights in the two parcels of land clearly require separate examination. Even after it has been found that the division of the lands in 1860 was only a temporary arrangem