JUDGMENT

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiffs, claiming to be the successors of the two original co-sharers in an occupancy holding, sued to redeem certain helds of that holding Which one of the two said co-sharers, now dead, had mortgaged to the landlords themselves. The facts bearing on the points argued before us are briefly as below:

2. One Chanda Singh was originally the sole tenant of the occupancy holding in question but he associated with himself in the tenancy his collateral Labh Singh, the father of the plaintiffs, and consequently both were entered in the Revenue Records as joint tenants in equal shares. However, though the holding remained joint, they separated in cultivation so that some fields were cultivated by one and some by the other and they both individually as well as jointly affected several mortgages by which some of the fields were mortgaged from time to time. Chanda Singh mortgaged much more than his own share. The mortgage in question is one of the mortgages effected by Chanda Singh. Labh Singh died first and was succeeded by his sons, the plaintiffs. On the death of Chanda Singh, the plaintiffs were entered in the Revenue Records as tenants of the entire holding. Thus they claimed to have succeeded by right of survivorship to Chanda, Singh's share in the holding and to have become entitled in this way to redeem to mortgage effected by him. The defendants pleaded, inter alia, that Chanda Singh and Labh Singh were not joint tenants even if they were tenants-in-common that, as a matter of fact, the holding had been partitioned as evidenced by separate possession and mortgages, and that this being so the rule of succession by survivorship was not applicable in this case. It was further contended that before suing for redemption the plaintiffs should have obtained a decree from a Revenue Court declaring that they were occupancy tenants as successors to the share of Chanda Singh.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit on arriving at the conclusion that the holding had been partitioned. On appeal the learned District Judge decided that separation in cultivation and alienations made by the co-sharers were not sufficient to establish final partition of the holding, and that the holding having remained joint, the plaintiffs were at present tenants of the whole of it and so could not sue to redeem the fields that had been mortgaged by Chanda Singh.

4. The landlords appeal, and their Counsel has strenuously urged before us the pleas referred to above, but we are of opinion that his arguments carry no force. To take the last point first the plaintiffs were recognised by the Revenue Authorities as lawful successors of Chanda Singh. As state 1 above, according to the mutation sanction on the death of Chanda Singh they are recorded as the occupancy tenants of the entire holding. Therefore, no Revenue Court's decree is needed to declare them occupancy tenants of Chanda Singh's share in the holding.

5. As regards the main contention that there was no joint tenancy the argument is based on the assumption that joint tenancy which the Punjab Custom recognises is the same as the estate known as joint tenancy to English Conveyancers. In Mohru v. Mutsaddi 109 P.R. 1894 , it was explained that the principle to be followed as regards the landlord, is that the joint tenants of a holding, even though it was not held by their common ancestor, are to be regarded as a single tenant, and that as long as any of them or the descendants of any of them, survive, the landlord cannot claim the share of any tenant whose line has died out." This being the guiding principle, it cannot be gainsaid with any show of reason that the plaintiffs being the survivors of the two joint tenants Labh Singh and Chanda Singh now represent the entire estate and have occupancy rights in the entire holding.

6. The contention that the holding had been partitioned can be of no avail because, obviously, what the joint tenants did was to