JUDGMENT Misra, J. - This is a Defendants' second appeal. The Plaintiff Ram Jash Pandey, obtained on the 27th May, 1938 a Patta in respect of plot No. 323 in village Alauddinpur from the Taluqdaria Thakurain Balraj Kunwar. This lease followed the death of one Pheku who was till December 1937 the tenant of the plot in suit. The Plaintiff came to Court alleging that he was dispossessed by Jai Raj Pandey in August 1938 and that the latter had no rights in respect of the land in suit. The Plaintiff, therefore, prayed for a decree for possession and Rs. 5 as damages. The suit was resisted upon the ground that the Defendant was a collateral of Pheku and was co-sharing with him till his death. He was, therefore, it was said, in possession in his own right as a tenant. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that Jai Raj Pandey was a collateral of Pheku, and at the time of the latter's death he was co-sharing with him in cultivation. The Plaintiff's title to possession was, therefore, bad, and he was entitled to no relief. The lower appellate Court, however, came to the conclusion that the Defendant had not established that he was the nearest collateral of Pheku alive at the time of the latter's death, nor had it been established that Jai Raj Pandey was sharing in the cultivation of the holding He, therefore, overruled the defence and decreed the Plaintiff's suit with costs. The claim for damages was not pressed before him. Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court Jai Raj Pandey has come up in second appeal. 2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the decision of the Court below on both the points is vitiated by errors of law. So far as the question of relationship is concerned it is said that in view of the fact that the Plaintiff did not put forward any other person as a nearer collateral of Pheku, it was not incumbent upon Jai Raj Pandey to establish that there was no other person nearer in degree than himself. So far as the question of relationship is concerned it is said that in view of the fact that the Plaintiff did not put forward any other person as a nearer collateral of Pheku, it was not incumbent upon Jai Raj Pandey to establish that there was no other person nearer in degree than himself. In connection with the proof of relationship the learned District Judge in appeal considered the evidence of Ram Naresh D.W. 4, who was the sole witness in that behalf, and he found that the lower Court was not justified in accepting the testimony of that one witness as sufficient to prove that Jai Raj Pandey was the nearest heir of Pheku. The finding to the contrary arrived at by the learned Munsif appears to have been reached under some misapprehension regarding the requirements of Section 48 of the Oudh Rent Act, for he appears to have considered not whether Jai Raj Pandey was the nearest heir but whether he was a collateral of Pheku. The pedigree that was appended to Jai Raj Pandey's written statement distinctly shows that Pheku's ancestor Nathai through one of whose sons Jai Raj Pandey claims to be related had also a number of other sons whose lines still exist. Neither the pleadings nor the evidence show in any manner as to whether amongst--the descendants of these other sons there are any persons nearer in degree than Jai Raj In this state of the record I am convicted that the decision on the question of relationship reached by the Court below is correct, and in any event I am of opinion that this is an inference of fact drawn from the evidence on the record which is not liable to be questioned in second appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also attacks the finding of the Court below on the question whether Jai Raj Pandey could be considered to have been sharing in cultivation with Pheku during his lifetime within the meaning of Section 48, Clause 2, of the Oudh Rent Act. The lower Court's estimate of evidence on this point is that Jai Raj merely gave some assistance to Pheku in cultivating the land in suit. Mere assistance, however, in the view taken by the learned District Judge did not amount to sharing in cultivation. The lower Court's estimate of evidence on this point is that Jai Raj merely gave some assistance to Pheku in cultivating the land in suit. Mere assistance, however, in the view taken by the learned District Judge did not amount to sharing in cultivation. It is urged that this view is wrong, and in support of the contention the case of the Allahabad High Court, K.B.H. Mohammad Mohi Uddin Haider v. Doori Singh (1930) 14 R.D. 400 is cited. There is no doubt that this decision supports the Appellant's contention, and it holds that co-sharing in cultivation is proved if a nephew assists his uncle at an advanced age in looking after his holding where the uncle was an old man of 80 years of age who partly from his caste and partly from his advanced age did not himself cultivate but directed the labourers to do the work. In my opinion it is unsatisfactory to lay down a test which would base itself merely upon the age or caste of the tenant or that of the person alleged to share in cultivation. The test to be applied, I consider must be somewhat more definite. Co sharing to my mind carries with it an idea of jointness, and a joint cultivation of a holding implies some sort of partnership in which both parties employ their resources either in the shape of capital or stock or in the shape of labour, and both parties share in the profit or loss occasioned in the business. Somewhat similar, I find, is also the view latterly taken by the Board of Revenue vide Sarjoo Kori v. Jogi Ram 1936 R.D. 118, Gopeshwar Prasad Man Tewari v. Baldeo Barai 1936 R.D. 190, Pearey Lal v. Kunjal 1937 R.D. 397, Tikori v. Babu Harakh Chand 1938 A.W.R. (B.R.) 13 : R.D. 1, and Sri Thakurji v. Lalta Prasad 1938 A.W.R. (B.R.) 165 : R.D. 378. Judged by this standard the assistance which was rendered by Jai Raj Pandey to Pheku in cultivation cannot be considered to amount to sharing in cultivation, and the Court below was, therefore, right in holding that Jai Raj Pandey obtained u/s 48 of the Oudh Rent Act no rights in respect of plot No. 223. It follows that the Patta in favour of the Plaintiff, Ram Jash Pandey, was valid, and his suit for possession was rightly decreed. 4. It follows that the Patta in favour of the Plaintiff, Ram Jash Pandey, was valid, and his suit for possession was rightly decreed. 4. This appeal, therefore, must fail and is dismissed with costs.