JUDGMENT Darling S.M., J. - (August 11, 1937).-Pandit Reoti Prasad sues for the ejectment of Mangli Kurmi as a trespasser u/s 44 of the Tenancy Act from plot No. 575, area 1 bigha, 16 biswas kham, situated in village Haidarabad Kharana of pargana Bareilly. The Defendant is the daughter's son of the late occupancy tenant Behari: he claims to have shared in t he cultivation with his grand-father. This claim was not admitted by the Assistant Collector, who by an order dated the 30th May, 1936, decreed the suit. In first appeal the Collector of Bareilly, sitting with the powers of a Commissioner, set aside this decision, held that the Defendant had co-shared in the cultivation with h s grand-father, and accordingly dismissed the suit The Plaintiff 2amindar dimes to the Board in second appeal. 2. As a child the Defendant Mangali lived with his grand-father Behari: he attended the village school: his grandfather arranged for his marriage. Furthermore, the grandfather made Mangali his heir in respect of some zamindari property which he owned. Mangali's age was about eighteen when his grandfather died: the question is whether Mangali can be said to have co-shared in the cultivation of his grand-father's holding, which he now claims. 3. After leaving school Mangali lived partly with his grand-father and partly with his own father in another village called Parewa some ten miles distant: he had no cultivation of any kind in his grand-father's village, nor did he possess either cattle or ploughs: at the most he helped his grand-father when be happened to be present. The Board have held that for sharing in cultivation it is necessary to pool one's own cattle and the implements of cultivation: there was no such pool in the present case for the simple reason that Mangali had no cat le nor implements of his own. The fact that Behari made his grandson his heir will not give the grandson a right to succeed to his occupancy holding unless he co-shared in the cultivation. In the presence of the parties I have examined the evidence with considerable care: I am satisfied that Mangali cannot be said to have shared in the cultivation with his grandfather, who looked after this occupancy holding in person. In the presence of the parties I have examined the evidence with considerable care: I am satisfied that Mangali cannot be said to have shared in the cultivation with his grandfather, who looked after this occupancy holding in person. I would allow this appeal: I would set aside the appellate order of the Collector of Bareilly, and would restore that of the Assistant Collector who has decreed the suit with Rs. 3-3-6 as damages. In the circumstances the parties can bear their own costs throughout. Bomford, J.M. (August 14,1937). 4. I agree.