JUDGMENT Darling, S.M. 1. (August 3, 1937).- The pedigree is essential for the proper understanding of this appeal, which arises out of a suit for a declaration that the Plaintiff is the surviving tenant of a certain occupancy holding. ********Tree Digram 2. At the settlement of 1336 F. the recorded tenants of this occupancy holding were Lochan, the father of the Plaintiff, arid Chhattar: there has been no subsequent settlement: in that year the holding was undoubtedly held by the two branches of the family. The year 1306 Fasli corresponds to" 1898-99 A. D. Some 15 years later in 1913 A. D. the holding was divided into two equal lots with the consent of the zamindar: these two lots, signed by the Plaintiff Kunjal on the one side, and by Chhattar on the other, have been brought on to the record by the Defendant zamindar, who is congesting the claim of Kunjal to be recognised as still the co-tenant of the holding. These lots were duly attested before the Qanungo, who, however, is no longer available: but the lots have been proved by the patwari, who signed them as a witness. The burden of proving the continuance of the tenancy in this occupancy holding was shifted on to the Plaintiff as soon as these lots were produced and proved in Court. Ever since the division of the holding in the year 1913 A. D. this particular portion has stood in the name of the representative of the opposite branch only. Chhattar died some 10 or 12 years ago: he was succeeded by his minor son Munshi, who died prematurely, and was succeeded by his mother Mst. Rampa: Mst. Rampa has accepted another husband: on her re-marriage she has lost her rights in this occupancy holding. The Plaintiff Kunjal has therefore brought the present suit for a declaration that he is still the co-tenant of the holding, and that the occupancy rights still subsist in his favour. By a long order dated the 9th September, 1936, the Assistant Collector decreed the suit: in first appeal this decision was upheld on the 24th February, 1937, by the Collector of Bareilly acting with the powers of a Commissioner. The Defendant zamindar comes to the Board in second appeal. 3. In his plaint Kunjal states that during his minority he was deprived of his share in this occupancy holding. The Defendant zamindar comes to the Board in second appeal. 3. In his plaint Kunjal states that during his minority he was deprived of his share in this occupancy holding. From this allegation of a minority a myth has sprung up over the decision of this case both in the Court of the Assistant Collector and in that of the first appellate Court: both Courts have assumed that Kunjal was a minor when the d vision of the original holding was carried out in the year 1913; in support of this assertion there is no evidence of any kind on the record. It is largely on the ground of this alleged minority that the lower appellate Court has refused to recognise the partition of the original holding carried out in the year 1913. The Plaintiff Kunjal is present in Court to-day: he is an able-bodied man in the middle stage of life I can see no reason why he should not have asserted his claim during these intervening years, if he had been wrongly deprived of his right during his minority, as alleged in the plaint. In the absence of all evidence to the contrary I find that Kunjal was of age when he executed the distribution of the former occupancy holding which he shared with his cousin Chhattar. I would also hold that that distribution is now binding. The suit is in respect of that portion of the old holding which was allotted to Chhattar: Kunjal has no longer any claim thereto. 4. It is pleaded in Court today that at the very least Kunjal is entitled to be recognised as the heir of Mst. Rampa, the last recorded tenant, on the ground that he co-shared with the last recorded male tenant, namely Munshi. The Board in their recent decisions hive held that co-sharing involves a| pooling of cattle and the implements of husbandry: there is no evidence whatsoever that Kunjal had pooled his cattle and implements of husbandry along with those of Chhattar's son, Munshi, even if this were possible in the case of a minor. Munshi was a minor for the few years during which he held the holding on his father's death before his own death, when he was replaced by his mother Mst. Rampa. Munshi was a minor for the few years during which he held the holding on his father's death before his own death, when he was replaced by his mother Mst. Rampa. At the very most Kunjal may have helped this minor over the minor's half share of the former joint holding: this is not co-sharing. 5. I would disallow Kunjal's claim. I would allow the appeal, and setting aside the orders of the two lower Courts would dismiss the suit with costs throughout including Rs. 10 for Pleader's fees in this Court. Bomford J.M. (August 5, 1937) 5. I entirely agree.