The judgment established the importance of fulfilling the elements of a partnership and the definition of 'tenant' under the Central Provinces Tenancy Act in determining the legal status of the appellant.

Mudholkar, J—This is a deft's second appeal from a decree granting to the plff. a declaration to the effect that field survey No. 96 of 'mahal' No. 2 of 'mouza' Batesara is his 'khudkast' field & awarding possession thereof as well as mesne profits.

2. It is common ground that the field in question was the 'khudkast' of Rao Pratapsingh who was the 'lambardar' of 'mahal' No. 2 of 'mouza' Batesara & that after his death the respondent as his adopted son has become its proprietor. Admittedly, he put the appellant in possession of this field in the year 1938. According to the resp. Rao Pratapsingh gave the field to the appellant for cultivation in partnership with himself for the agricultural year 1938-39. The terms of partnership stated by him in the plaint are as follows:

That each party was to contribute equal labour & expenses such as ploughs, etc. The said Rao Saheb was to supply seed returnable with 'Sawabaibadhi' (1/4 as interest) & both were to get 1/3 of the produce after deduction of seed with 'Sawabaibadhi' & 2/3 was to be taken by the said Rao Saheb as proprietor of the plot.

According to the appellant these allegations are untrue & have been invented by the respondent with a view to defeat his right to the field. He claims that as a result of the transaction of 1938 he became an occupancy tenant of the field & that under that transaction he was only liable to pay rent at Rs. 175/- per annum. Further, according to him, after the death of Rao Pratapsingh his widows reduced the rent from Rs. 175 to Rs. 150./-.

3. It is unnecessary to refer to that part of the pleadings which deals with the respondent's allegations to the effect that after the death of Rao Pratapsingh he had taken possession of the field & had cultivated it & that subsequently the appellant dispossessed him which led to the proceedings under S. 145, Cr. P. C. because nothing really turns on this point.

4. The simple point to be decided in this appeal is whether upon the allegations made by the respondent himself in the plaint a contract of partnership can be said to have been brought into existence as held by the Courts below, or whether in the absence of proof of such a contract the appellant must be regarded as a tenant of the field.

5. The word 'tenant' is defined thus in S. 2(11); Central Provinces Tenancy Act:

'tenant' means a person who holds land of another person, & is, or but for a contract would: be, liable to pay rent for such land to such other person, but does not include-

(a) a farmer, mortgagee or thekadar of proprietary rights; or

(b) a person to whom only the right to cut grass, or to graze cattle, or to grow 'singhara' (Trapa. Bispinosa'), or to propagate or collect 'lac' is granted; or

(c) a servant holding land as his remuneration & not liable to pay any rent

Thus, under this definition every person holding the land of another must be deemed to be a tenant unless he comes in any of the categories (a), (b), or (c), or unless there is a contract between him & the proprietor of the land to the effect that he would not be liable to pay rent to the proprietor in respect of the land held by him. The appellant is holding the land of which the respondent is now the proprietor. So, unless it is proved that the appellant was let into possession of the land by the respondent's predecessor-in-title under a contract which did not render the appellant liable to pay any rent, he (the appellant) is to be presumed to have become the tenant of that land. I have already referred to the terms of the partnership contract set out by the respondent in his plaint. The question is whether this contract has been established, & if so whether it fulfils the requirements of law & takes the relationship between the parties out of the definition of the word 'tenant' in S. 2(11), of the Tenancy Act.

6. 'Prima facie' the contract pleaded by the respondent is one of 'batai'. In 'Chandan v. Megha,1912 RVR 13, it has been held that the ordinary presumption is that the man wh