JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff is the owner of some 100 bighas of land known as English land. She and the Defendants in this case held that laud In joint tenancy under herself, her share being 1 anna 15 dams and the share of the Defendants being 14 annas 5 dams. In the year 1900 the Plaintiff obtained a decree for partition of her own share and under that decree, plots were allotted to her separately to represent her share and other plots were also allotted separately to the other tenants to represent their respective shares in the tenancy. 2. The present suit is brought to recover rent of the land allotted to the Defendants, that is to say, 14 annas 5 dams share of the entire rent as it formerly existed, the rent being at an uniform rate of 3 annas per bigha. 3. The defence is that the Plaintiff cannot maintain the suit in its present form, that she is not entitled to sue the Defendants jointly and that she must bring a separate suit against each of the tenants in respect of the land which was allotted to him under the partition decree. 4. The Munsif upheld the contention of the Defendants and dismissed the suit but the District Judge on appeal held that there was no separate tenancy created in favour of each of the Defendants separately and he accordingly remanded the case under sec. 562 for trial on the merits. 5. We are of opinion that the decision of the District Judge is quite correct. 6. It is argued on behalf of the Defendants who have appealed to this Court that the act of the Plaintiff in bringing a suit for partition and thus affording an opportunity to the Defendants to get their shares separated amongst themselves amounts to a recognition of the division of the holding. In that contention we are unable to agree. What was divided was not the tenancy but merely lands which were held by the tenants. There was no recognition of the division of the holding or of distribution of rents. As between them and the landlord the tenants are still jointly liable to the landlord for the entire rent. In this view the appeal falls and is dismissed with costs, the hearing fee being assessed at two gold mohurs.