JUDGMENT : RAFIQ, J. It appears that the defendants respondents are exproprietary tenants of about 42 bighas of land in the village of Mahrauli. They have a house in the abadi and a small enclosure by that house which they use for storing manure and keeping their cattle. There was a perfect partition of the village in September 1910, by which the holding of the defendants respondents fell to the share of one Bhuttan, and the house, the site and the enclosure to the share of the plaintiffs appellants. On the 23rd of September, 1911, the plaintiffs appellants instituted a suit in the court of the Munsif of Ghaziabad to recover possession of plot No. 30 measuring two biswas 15 biswansis situated in the abadi, on the allegation that the said plot had fallen to their share at the time of the partition and that the defendants respondents had without any right taken possession of that plot, 2½ years prior to the institution of the suit. The land which the plaintiffs appellants sought to recover was the enclosure by the house of the defendants respondents which they had been using for keeping manure and cattle. The defendants respondents resisted the claim on the ground that they had been in possession of the said enclosure for many years and had a right to keep it as long as they were tenants in the village. The court of first instance decreed the claim. On appeal the learned additional Judge reversed the decree of the first court holding that the land in suit was absolutely necessary for the agricultural purposes of the defendants respondents and was an appurtenance to their agricultural holding. The plaintiffs appellants have come up in second appeal to this Court. They contend that the land in suit was a piece of waste land in the abadi which, prior to the partition, the co-sharers of the village permitted the defendants respondents to use for storing manure and keeping cattle. The latter have acquired no right in respect of the land and must give it up as the plaintiffs appellants want to build a house on it. The land in question is not and could not be an appurtenance to the holding of the defendants respondents. The latter have acquired no right in respect of the land and must give it up as the plaintiffs appellants want to build a house on it. The land in question is not and could not be an appurtenance to the holding of the defendants respondents. In the abadi of a village the house of a tenant is the only thing that can be said to be an appurtenance to his holding. The learned Counsel for the appellants has cited no law or authority giving the definition of the word ‘appurtenance.’ What is an appurtenance to the holding of an agricultural tenant must in my opinion be decided according to the circumstances of each case. In the present case the defendants respondents have got a large area of land to cultivate for which they require a number of bullocks and other accessories. They must have a piece of land for their cattle and manure. And if the plot in suit has been allowed to remain in their possession for more than twenty years by the Zamindars of the village for the use of cattle and manure, I should say that the plot has become an appurtenance to the agricultural holding of the defendants respondents. I therefore hold accordingly. The fact that the plot in suit and the site of the house of the respondents have been allotted at the partition to the plaintiffs appellants and the agricultural holding of the respondents to Bhullan does not give the plaintiffs appellants the right to eject the defendants respondents from and to recover possession of the plot in suit. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.