JUDGMENT Kaul, J. - This is a Defendants' second appeal in a suit for possession. 2. The material facto are briefly as follows: The Appellants and Respondents were co-sharers in village Paragon in Unao district. The partition of the village was effected in 1930 and some of the lands which constituted the Appellants' khudkasht were allotted at this partition to patti Rajendra Singh mohal Baqiy a- the Respondents' patti. The following note was made in the partition proceedings with regard to such lands: Paragraph 7: Khudkasht land of less than 12 years if it falls in the patti of any of one of the khudkasht holders, will become his sole khudkasht. If it falls in a patti in which none of the khudkasht holders have a share it will become non-statutory tenancy of khudkasht holder, period one year. 3. It is not disputed that these were lands which had not been held as khudkasht for 12 years by the Appellants. These lands were held by tenants from whom rent was realized by them. They continued to do so even after the partition. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought in 1939 on the allegation that Defendants 1 to 4, the present Appellants, were wrongfully realizing rent of the disputed lands from the tenants who were Defendants 5 to 11 in the suit. The claim was contested by Defendants 1 to 4 only. They pleaded that they were statutory tenants of the land in suit and that the claim was barred by the provisions of Section 233K of the Land Revenue Act. Both these contentions were repelled and the claim was decreed. An appeal to the District Judge of Unao was unsuccessful. Hence this appeal. 4. The same two points were raised before me. As regards the plea based on the provisions of Section 233 is of the Land Revenue Act, it is clear that no question in respect of the partition or union of any modal arises in the present case. According to the Plaintiffs-Respondents' contention the present Appellants, Defendants 1 to 4 in the trial Court had no right to realize the rent of these lands from the tenants who held them. The Appellants in their tarn contended that they were statutory tenants of these lands. According to the Plaintiffs-Respondents' contention the present Appellants, Defendants 1 to 4 in the trial Court had no right to realize the rent of these lands from the tenants who held them. The Appellants in their tarn contended that they were statutory tenants of these lands. Even if the Plaintiffs' contention was accepted, and a decree for possession was passed-as has been the case-there would be no alteration affecting the partition. Section 233K therefore has no application. 5. The next point urged raised the question of construction of the provisions contained in paragraph 7 of the partition proceedings which have been quoted above. It appears from an examination of the cases decided by the Board of Revenue-an authority whose opinion on such a mater is entitled to respect-that at one time there was a difference of opinion as to what WAS the true implication not such a clause is a tarz taqsam Mst. Kaniz Fatima v. Koolfut Ahtr (1921 )5R.D. 255 at 256; Bauru v. Tulshi (1920) 4 R.D. 37; Rudrapil Singh v. Rustam Singh (1923) 7 R.D. 454 Bmjnath v. Palakdhari (1929) 13 R.D 770 and Balram singh v. Sheo Charan Singh (1931) 15 R.D. 768. were cited in support of the view that where khudkasht land is described as the non-statutory holding or tenancy of the khudkasht holder for any period, the relationship of landlord and tenant is created between such bolder and the co-sharer to whose patti the land is allotted. The matter, however appears to have been set at rest by the two latest reported decisions of the Beard (i) Kali Prasad Misra v. Babu Lal Bachu Rat (1931) 15 R.D. 773 and (ii) Sri Narain v. Pahlad Dubey (1934) 18 R.D. 246. 6. It is note work by that Mr. Keane, who was responsible for the decision in Balram Singh v. Sheo Charan Singh 5, was also a member of the Bench which disposed of the case reported in Kali Prasad Misra v. Babu Lal Bachu Rai (1931) 15 R.D. 773. of considerable interest is the following observation of Mr. Keane at page 769 of the report: It was the commenest thing in the world to the new proprietor to refuse to accept such khudkasht holders as their tenants The long series of decisions by the Board on this subject shows that the abetment of such khudkasht holders as trespassers was a common proceeding. 7. Keane at page 769 of the report: It was the commenest thing in the world to the new proprietor to refuse to accept such khudkasht holders as their tenants The long series of decisions by the Board on this subject shows that the abetment of such khudkasht holders as trespassers was a common proceeding. 7. Stress was laid by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant on the following words occurring in the same paragraph: If in the partition proceedings, it continued to say that the same land will become the non-occupancy tenancy of the same holder in the new mahal then the contact would be complete. 8. Whatever Mr. Keane may have meant by this expression there can be no doubt that sitting with Mr. Oppenheim he committed himself unequivocally for the view taken by the learned Judge in the Court below in the present case. The language of paragraph 7 of the tarz taqsim in the case reported in Kali Prasad Misra v. Babu Lal Bachu Rat (1931) 15 R.D. 773 was the same as is the case before me: Such land should become non-occupancy tenancy of the khudkasht holders for a period of one year. 9. It was held in the other case reported in Sri Narain v. Pahlad Dubey (1934) 18 R.D. 246 khudkasht land of one co-sharer falls into the patti of another co-sharer, the partition generally agree that he shall be a non-occupancy tenant of it, but such an arrangement does not amount to a contract of tenancy and the holder must obtain the admission of the new land holder to his occupancy. If he does not, he can be ejected u/s 44 of the Agra Tenancy Act. 10. Rule 45 of the Partition Manual which contains rules relating to partitions under the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1101, runs as fellows: Paragraph 7. (1) Other khudkasht land, if it falls in the patti of any one of the khudkasht holders, should become his sole khudkasht; and if it falls in a patti in which none of the khudkasht holders has a share, the former khudkasht holders, if the continue in possession, will be regarded as trespassers unless and until they are admitted as tenants. If, however, the parties so wish, it may be specially provided that it should become the statutory tenancy of the khudkasht holders, and it should be stated how the rent will be fixed. 11. This rule is contained in Chapter V of the Manual which deals with the preparation of partition proceeding, (tarz taqsim). It lays down what the different paragraphs of the tarz taqsim should contain. If khudkasht land held by a co-sharer falls in the patti of another co-sharer in which the khudkasht holder has no share, and he continues in possession, he will be regarded as a trespasser "unless and until he is admitted as tenant". It is in the light of this rule that the provision in the tarz taqsim before us should be construed. It contended by Mr. Dhaon, who appeared for the Appellants, that his clients should be deemed to have been admitted as tenants at the time the tarz ttqsim was prepared. The contention is untenable. The admission as a tenant referred to in the rule must be subsequent to the partition-unless by agreement of the parties it is specially provided in the tarz taqsim that khudkasht land should become the statutory tenancy of the khud-kusht holder. 12. Mr. Dhaon's contention that by virtue of the entry contained in the partition proceedings to the effect that if khudkasht land falls in a patti in which none of the khudkasht holders have any share, "it will become non-statutory tenancy of the khudkasht bolder, period one year," his clients acquired the status of no statutory tenants of one year's standing cannot be upheld. the only effect of this entry was that the land was to be treated as non-statutory tenancy holding of the khudkasht holder for a period of one year. This period was obviously allowed to enable the khudkasht holder to get a patta from the proprietor of the patti in respect of the land, otherwise as laid down in Rule 45, he was to be treated as a trespasser. In view of what has been stated above, it must toe held that the decision arrived at by the Courts below was right. The appeal is dismissed with posts.