JUDGMENT Lodge, J. - The material facts may be stated briefly. One Kalibala was in possession of an occupancy holding which comprised two plots C.S. Dag Nos. 68 and 69, and measured .06 acres in area. On June 24th, 1941, Kalibala sold C.S. Plot No. 69 measuring .04 acres to Kananbala. In the following year, 1942, the landlord granted a rent receipt to Kananbala in respect of C.S. Dag No. 69 only for a rent of Re. 1-1-0, which was exactly 2/3 of the rents of the original holding and on the same day he granted a rent receipt to Kalibala in respect of C.S. Dag No. 68 for a rental of -8-6 pies being 1/3 of the rent of the original holding. On October 24th, 1943, Kalibala sold the remaining plot, C.S. Plot No. 68 to Gangabala, the mother of the Petitioners in the present case. In that kobala it was stated that there were no co-sharers in the holding and the holding was described as C.S. Dag No. 68 measuring .02 acres in area, with a rental of -8-6 pies. On February 1st, 1944, Kananbala in her turn sold to Khudiram C.S. Plot No. 68 and in the kobala it was stated that the occupancy holding consisted of C.S. Plot No. 69 and bore a rental of Re. 1-1-0 and that there were no co-sharers. Thereafter Gangabala applied under sec. 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act for an order that the portion transferred to Khudiram be transferred to herself. The learned Munsif allowed the prayer and directed that the portion transferred by Kananbala to Khudiram be transferred to Gangabala. Khudiram appealed against that order. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Munsif. The learned Additional District Judge held that there had been a valid division of the original occupancy holding and that when Khudiram purchased, he purchased the entire occupancy holding and Gangabala was not a co-sharer of that holding. The learned Judge also observed that Gangabala was estopped from denying that the holding had been validly split up. Gangabala's heirs have obtained this Rule. 2. The whole question is whether the original tenancy comprising C.S. Dag Nos. 68 and 69 had been validly divided or whether at the time of Khudiram's purchase Gangabala was a co-sharer in the occupancy holding, a portion of which was purchased by Khudiram. 3. Gangabala's heirs have obtained this Rule. 2. The whole question is whether the original tenancy comprising C.S. Dag Nos. 68 and 69 had been validly divided or whether at the time of Khudiram's purchase Gangabala was a co-sharer in the occupancy holding, a portion of which was purchased by Khudiram. 3. As pointed out above the landlord granted dakhilas to both Kananbala and Kalibala on the same day in the year, 1942, which dakhilas indicate that there had been division of the holding, a division which in fact had been consented to by the landlords and by Kalibala and Kananbala, that is, there had been a division and there had been consent in fact by the landlord and by all the co-sharer tenants. 4. Sec. 88 (1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act as amended in the year 1938 provides as follows:-- Save as provided elsewhere in this section a division of a tenure or holding or a distribution of rent payable in respect thereof shall not be valid unless such division or distribution has been expressly consented to in writing by both-- (a) the landlord or the entire body of landlords, or their agents duly authorised in that behalf, and (b) all the co-sharer tenants. 5. It is conceded that in view of the proviso to sec. 88 (1) and in view of the dakhilas granted to Kananbala and Kalibala in the year 1942, it may be presumed that the sole landlord gave his express consent in writing to the division. The question is whether all the co-sharer tenants have expressly consented in writing to the division and whether their express consent in the circumstances is sufficient for the purpose of effecting a valid division of the holding. 6. In the kobala dated October 24th, 1943. Kalibala stated definitely that the holding which she transferred by that kobala consisted of C.S. Dag No. 68 only and measured .02 acres only and she stated definitely that it bore a rental of -8-6 pies and that there were no co-sharers. The learned Additional District Judge in the Court of Appeal below has held that this kobala contains an express consent in writing by Kalibala to the division of the tenancy. The learned Additional District Judge in the Court of Appeal below has held that this kobala contains an express consent in writing by Kalibala to the division of the tenancy. Similarly, Kauanbala when she sold to Khudiram on February 1st, 1944, described in her kobala the holding which she was selling as C.S. Dag No. 69 measuring .04 acres and bearing a rental of Re. 1-1-0 and she also stated in the kobala that there were no co-sharers. It seems to me that the learned Additional District Judge in the Court of Appeal below was right in holding that in this kobala also Kananbala expressly consented in writing to the division which took place in the year 1942. In this view it follows that there was in fact a division in the year 1942 to which the express consent in writing of the sole landlord was given at the time of the division, that the express consent in writing of one of the two co-sharer tenants was not given until October of the following year, and that the express consent of the second of the two co-sharer tenants was not given until February, 1944. 7. It has been argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the express consent in writing referred to in sec. 88 must be given by all the persons concerned, substantially at the same time and that the consent of each of the persons must be part of one and the same transaction, that is to say, the landlord and all the co-sharer tenants must expressly consent in writing substantially at the same time and in the course of the same transaction to the division of the holding. 8. On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of the Opposite Party that the section does not require anything of the sort. All that the section provides is that a division agreed upon between the parties shall not be valid until it has been expressly consented to in writing by all the parties. I can see nothing in the language of the section which requires that the consent of all the parties concerned shall be given in writing at the same time. All that the section provides is that a division agreed upon between the parties shall not be valid until it has been expressly consented to in writing by all the parties. I can see nothing in the language of the section which requires that the consent of all the parties concerned shall be given in writing at the same time. It is obvious that there must be a consent to the division at one time but the consent in writing need not, in my opinion, all be expressed at the same time and I am of the opinion that the learned Judge was right in holding that the express consent in writing given by Kalibala in October, 1943 and the express consent in writing given by Kananbala in February, 1944, were sufficient for the purposes of sec. 88 (1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act to effect a valid division of the holding to which the sole landlord had already expressly consented in writing. 9. In this view the learned Additional District judge in the Court below was right in holding that when Khudiram purchased in 1944 he purchased an entire occupancy holding and Gangabala was not then a co-sharer in a holding portion of which only had been purchased Khudiram. In this view the order of the learned Additional District Judge is right and the Rule must be discharged. The Rule is accordingly discharged with costs-hearing-fee, one gold mohur.