JUDGMENT Bomford, J.M. 1. [November 1, 1937.] There is a dispute about Nos. 119 and 120 in a. partition case. The father of Sidhgopal Appellant bought these plots in 1903 from Gulab Singh, who was not a proprietor and the plots then constituted a tenant's grove. No. 119 is now cultivated while No. 120 is still a grove. There was a partition in 1904; in that partition the grove was treated as tenant's grove. Subsequently the patwari recorded the grove as 'bagh malikan' which indeed it had become and in the partition proceedings now under consideration, it was proposed to give the grove to Sidhgopal and let him give compensation to other co-sharers. Sidhgopal objected to the clause requiring him to give compensation. 2. He wanted both plots to be given to him without compensation, and what he really wants is (1) plots Nos. 119 and 120 to be treated as his severalty; (2) that they should be given to him over and above his share because his father bought them as a private venture. 3. Sidhgopal first raised his claim in objection to the partition proceeding and the Assistant Collector rejected his objection on the basis of the papers. The Collector before whom the Respondent did not appear reversed this decision. The Commissioner in appeal held that the papers of 1343 F. must be accepted. 4. I find it difficult to follow the Commissioner's argument. He admits that there is no evidence that Mani Ram bought the grove on behalf of all the co-sharers, which is the suggestion now made on the ground that part of the price was set off against arrears of rent. It seems to me that when the grove passed to one of the co-sharers, the patwari naturally recorded it as 'bagh malikan'. 5. I have no hesitation myself in finding that Mani Ram and after him Sidhgopal was the sole owner of Nos. 119 and 120 and the Appellant's right to hold those plots does not seem to me disputed. The real question is whether they should form part of his share or should be given to him over and above his share, a point which has not been considered. 6. This point was discussed by the Board in appeal No. 18 of 1936-37, district Gorakhpur, Brindaban v. Chandra Shekar, decided on March 25 and 26, 1937. The real question is whether they should form part of his share or should be given to him over and above his share, a point which has not been considered. 6. This point was discussed by the Board in appeal No. 18 of 1936-37, district Gorakhpur, Brindaban v. Chandra Shekar, decided on March 25 and 26, 1937. In that case it held that if a co-sharer bought a tenant's grove he was entitled to his share in the sir and khudkasht etc. under partition, while he would get so much of the grove in his patti as proprietor as represented his share of tenant's grove. For the rest he would remain grove holder. 7. In this case then it must be made clear, that the Appellant is not entitled to get any land over and above his share, but so far as No. 120 is concerned that grove should be treated as tenant's grove, which means that he will get his share in the grove included in his patti as proprietor and will remain grove holder in that portion which goes to other pattis. But No. 119 can no longer be regarded as or treated as grove. It should be included in Appellant's pat if he so wishes and it is convenient to do so, but as a part of "his share and not over and above his share. 8. A further point argued was that u/s 201 no appeal lay to the Commissioner in this case from the ex-parte order of the Collector. The High Court has however held that Section 201 does not apply to an ex-parte decision of a question of title u/s 111 by a Revenue Court. 9. The orders of all the Courts below are accordingly set aside and as neither party has been entirely successful parties may bear their own costs throughout. Darling S.M. [November 1, 1937] 10. I agree.