This is a revision application under sec. 13 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, against an order of the S.D.O. Behror, dated 29.1.54 refusing to grant protection to the applicants under sec. 7 of the Ordinance. 2. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also been led through the record of the case. 3. The case of the applicants was that their share in filed No. 634, measuring 25 bighas and 15 biswas was to the extent of two bullocks out of 6 i.e. 1/3 and that the had been dispossessed by the opposite party from about one bigha of this field. The lower court dismissed their claim on the ground that applicants were not able to establish that they are the tenants of the land in dispute and the fard intkhab produced by them had not been duly proved. 4. The main arguments urged before me in support of the revision are that the lower court had erred in not placing reliance on the fard intkhab on the ground that it had not been duly proved and that it had failed to appreciate properly the evidence produced before it. 5. The entries in khasra teep relating to land in dispute in the year immediately preceding Svt. year 2007 as given in the certified copy filed by the applicants read as follows:— (1) Sheonath son of Kana, 1/3 (2) Chandra son of Kishna 1/6 (3) Sonia son of Suwa, 1/6 Ahir (4) Bhajja son of Rambuxa, 1/6 and (5) Kalya son of Chandra 1/6, Mali etc. etc. In Svt. 2007 Shivnath etc. have been shown as holding the land in conjunction with Bhagwan and Arjun as principal tenants and Sonya and Kalya are shown as Pattadars under them. The same entry is repeated in Svt. 2008 and 2009. It is clear from these entries that Kalya applicant is shown as having l/6th share in the cultivation of the field in dispute, whereas the name of Mula applicant does not at all appear in the Revenue Records. Mula claims to be the brother of Sonya and argues that since Sonya is the elder brother, only his name has been given in the khasra girdawari whereas both, he and Sonya, were in possession of l/3rd share of field No. 264. Mula claims to be the brother of Sonya and argues that since Sonya is the elder brother, only his name has been given in the khasra girdawari whereas both, he and Sonya, were in possession of l/3rd share of field No. 264. It is thus obvious that the applicants claim that they are shareholders in the cultivation of the entire field jointly with the opposite party to the extent of 1/3rd and their main allegation is that the opposite party has taken one bigha of land in their possession more than their recorded share. It is an admitted fact that both the parties are still recorded as in joint possession of the field in dispute. It is a settled maxim of law that possession of one joint-cultivator is the possession of all. It therefore, follows that the possession over one bigha of land which is a small part of the filed in dispute shall be considered to be that of the joint tenants and if any one of the tenants has cultivated it separately, the other joint tenants are entitled to share the expenses of cultivation and the proceeds. The remedy of the applicants would therefore, lie in a suit for division of holding or rendition of account and not in an applicant for recovery of possession under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance. The lower court was therefore correct in holding that no case under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, has been made out. I see no reason to interfere with this finding: The revision is hereby rejected.