JUDGMENT Rampini, J. - This appeal arises out of a suit for the ejectment of the Defendants from a plot of land measuring 5 kanies. This area was a portion of a holding formerly in the occupation of the Defendant. No. G. There has been a partition by the collector of the estate to which the holding appertains and the holding has been divided between the Plaintiff and his co-sharers. The portion of the holding from which the Plaintiff seeks to eject the Defendants has fallen to the share of the Plaintiff. The other portion has fallen to the share or shares of the Plaintiff's co-sharers. The holding originally belonged to the Defendant No. 6. He sold it on the 27th December 1892 to one Bhairab, the father of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 are their under-tenants. The Defendant No. 6 has now abandoned the land. He has ceased to pay rent for It. He does not contest the suit. He appeared as a witness and deposed that he has now no interest in the disputed 5 kanies. The Judge has found that the partition by the collector divided the holding into two new holdings, that it was a nontransferable holding, so Bhairab acquired no interest in it by his purchase in 1892 and that the Defendants have never been admitted as tenants by the Plaintiffs, the rent receipts produced being either forgeries or granted by a person who had no authority to grant them. He therefore decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff. 2. The Defendant No. 1 appeals. On his behalf it is urged (1) that the abandonment of a portion of the holding did not amount to an abandonment of the whole of it, (2) that under the Partition Act VIII of 1876, B. C, the holding could not be split up and (3) that the transfer of the disputed land having taken place previously to the partition becoming final, the rights of the Defendant could not be affected by it. 3. I am of opinion that the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court are correct. 3. I am of opinion that the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court are correct. The partition made by the collector had the effect of dividing the old holding into two new ones and the Plaintiff became the sole landlord of the 5 kanies held by the Defendants, and which the Defendant No. 6 had clearly abandoned. The Appellant's pleader urges that the old Partition Act VIII of 1876 contained no provision for the division of the holdings, such as is now contained in sec 81, Act V of 1897. But the old Act contained no prohibition against the division of holdings and tenures, and holdings have been divided under the old Act and these divisions have been recognised by the Courts, see Sarat Sundari Debya v. Ananda Mohun Sarma ILR 5 Cal. 273(1879) and Hem Chandra Chowdhry v. Kali Prosunno Bhaduri ILR 26 Cal. 832 (1899). 4. It is true that the partition took effect from the 2nd March 1893, and that Bhairab's purchase is dated 27th December 1892, But the sale by the Defendant No. 6 was of a non transferable holding. It therefore gave the Defendants no interset in the land and the Court below has found that the Plaintiff never recognised the transferees of the Defendant No. 6's interest as tenants of the land. 5. The Appellant's pleader relies on the cases of Durga Prosad Sen v. Doula Gazee 1 C.W.N. 160 and 161 (1904).and Rai Kamaleswari v. Maharaja Harbullabh Narain Singh 2 C.L.J. 369 (1905). These have no application to the present case. There are cases of a transfer of a portion of a holding the remainder of which was held under the same landlord. Here the partition has had the effect of dividing the old holding into two. The Plaintiff is now seeking to eject the Defendants from the land which is held under him alone. As the former tenant has abandoned the land, the land is non-transferable agriculturable land, and the Plaintiff has never recognised the Defendants as his tenants, he is entitled to eject them. 6. I would dismiss the appeal with costs. Woodroffe, J. I agree.