JUDGMENT : KNOX, J.:— Habib-ul-lah, the appellant in the present second appeal, instituted a suit against Musammat Kushimba and others. The object of the suit was to obtain a decree that Musammat Kushimba had no right to have a 9 pie 3 khams share separated, or in other words, partitioned by the Revenue Court. According to the plaintiff himself this 9 pie 3 khams share was originally owned and possessed by one Nabi Khan. On Nabi Khan's death, Musammat Kushimba took possession, of the whole share, got her name entered in the khewat in lieu of her dower debt and still is in possession of the same. The appellant declares himself entitled to a 2 pie share in this 9 pie 3 hhams share. He does not ask for partition of this, he asks that Musammat Kushimba be not allowed to have her share partitioned at all. As the plaint shows and as the arguments addressed to us show the position which the appellant takes with regard to Musammat Kushimba's application is that Musammat Kushimba's possession is no” higher than that of a mortgagee, and he really prays in aid of his suit the provision contained in section 107 of Act No. III of 1901. That provision is as follows:— “Provided that when a share is in possession of a mortgagee, no application for partition by either mortgagor or mortgagee shall be entertained unless both have joined in such application.” Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit, the lower appellate Court holding that Musammat Kushaim on being a record co-sharer is entitled to partition. Her possession, the learned Judge points out, is not that of a mortgagee. “She may be more or less in the position of a mortgagee but is not strictly speaking one. The Revenue Act should be, in my opinion, strictly interpreted and does not forbid her seeking and obtaining partition without the plaintiff's consent.” 2. As already stated the case put to us here is that the possession of Musammat Kushimba is at the highest one of a mortgagee and as such she is not entitled to partition without the consent of the plaintiff if indeed she be entitled to partition at all. The question is a pure question of law and seems to us fully provided for by what is contained in sections 107 and 111 of Act No. III of 1901. The question is a pure question of law and seems to us fully provided for by what is contained in sections 107 and 111 of Act No. III of 1901. Section 107 provides that an application for partition may be presented by one or more of the “recorded co-sharers “of a mahal. Any objection that can be made to partition is an objection “made by a recorded co-sharer involving a question of proprietary title.” The object of partition, namely, such partition as Musammat Kushimba is in the present case applying for is that of freeing “herself from joint responsibility for payment of Government revenue. The plaintiff is not a recorded co-sharer in any part of this 9 pie 3 hhams share. He cannot “ask for partition even of the 2 pie share to which he says he is entitled until he has been recorded as a co-sharer of the same. We agree with the learned Judge that the proviso attached to section 107 does not in any way apply to the present case, which provides only for the case of a mortgagee in possession and cannot be intended to cover the case of other persons however much in other respects their possession may be analogous to that of mortgagees. The appeal is dismissed with costs.