JUDGMENT R.N. Gurtu, J. - This is a Defendants' appeal. 2. Village Sukna, Patti Rithagarh has an area of 303 15/16 Nalis Out of this, an area of 223 2/16 Nalis is 'Parat' (assessed) land and the remaining area of 80 13/16 Nalis is 'Beparat' (unassessed) land. At one time in the history of this village, one Gulab Singh became the sole khaikar of practically the entire area of 'parat land' with the exception of a very small area of which one Padi Mahta was the 'Sirtan'. 3. So far as the 'beparat' (unassessed) land was concerned, it was recorded as "Gaon Sanjait Mawari" at that time. It appears that Gulab Singh, being a sole khaikar of the village, considered himself free to deal with his khaikari rights. He released half of his 'parat' (assessed) land in favour of Tilok Singh hissedar and that land became Tilok Singh's khudkasht. Gulab Singh also parted with his rights in another quarter of his 'parat land' in favour of one Prem Singh, this being done either directly or by the device of a release to and concurrence by the hissedars. In their turn, the hissedars created some khaikars of part of the 'parat land' which had been released to them by Gulab Singh. 4. The entires so far as the 'parat land' was concerned, were made in favour of the several successors-in-interest of Gulab Singh. These are now represented by some of the Plaintiffs. 5. So far as the 'beparat land' was concerned, the description of 'Gaon Sanjait Mawari' given to it in the earlier record was altered in the later Settlement records to "Beparat Khaikaran". The successors-in-interest of Gulab Singh entered into possession of some of the area of 'beparat land' also. Then partition proceedings in respect of the village were instituted and the Plaintiffs in those proceedings, who are some of the successors-in-interest of Gulab Singh, claimed rights in the 'beparat land' in proportion to the shares they held in the 'parat land' of the village. 6. Their claim was resisted by the Defendants to those proceedings who happened to be the descendants of Gulab Singh who, as stated above, was at one time the sole khaikar of the village. 6. Their claim was resisted by the Defendants to those proceedings who happened to be the descendants of Gulab Singh who, as stated above, was at one time the sole khaikar of the village. The Defendants' contention was that no portion of 'beparat land' was ever parted With by Gulab Singh and that the plaintiffs acquired no rights in 'beparat land' by virtue of the dealings of Gulab Singh with his khaikari rights in 'parat land'. 7. The trial court accepted the defence. 8. On appeal, the lower appellate court has held that the Plaintiffs were entitled to a share in the 'beparat land' of the village in proportion to the respective areas held by them ia 'parat land' i.e., that they were entitled to share the 'beparat land' in proportion to the revenue paid by them. 9. This second appeal before me has been preferred by the Defendants. The argument advanced is that since 'beparat land' was not transferred by Gulab Singh, no rights can accrue to the Plaintiffs merely because the 'parat land' is now held by them in their own rights. 10. A 'Khaikar' is either an underprorietor whose rights as the original occupant cultivator have been usurped by or granted to some other person at some former period or is an occupancy tenant. In a khaikari village, he has a holding of 'parat land' of his own. Over and above this, in a khaikari village, there is also an area of undivided measured common land which is either common to the whole community (Gaon Sanjait) or common to certain families or co-sharers only. This 'Sanjait land' is capable of partition and when such partition is by 'Mawari Bant', each family takes an equal share. Thus where some khaikars wish to cultivate 'Gaon Sanjait' i.e., ' Beparat ' (unassessed) land, they must resort to partition. This 'Sanjait land' is capable of partition and when such partition is by 'Mawari Bant', each family takes an equal share. Thus where some khaikars wish to cultivate 'Gaon Sanjait' i.e., ' Beparat ' (unassessed) land, they must resort to partition. Until such partition, the land continues to be undivided measured common land, khaikars are really a joint village community and it is because of this that restrictions are even imposed on the transfer by khaikars of their khaikari holdings and also restrictions are imposed on releases by khaikars of khaikari holdings in favour of the over-proprietors, the hissedars Even in regard to their individual holdings, the intention is that the khaikars inter se of a particular village should, so far as possible, derive certain advantages by virtue of the fact that they themselves are khaikars, so far as holdings of other khaikars are concerned. In regard to the 'Parat' (assessed) holdings, these are, of course, held separately. So far as the undivided measured land not assessed to land revenue, namely, 'Beparat' is concerned, it normally is land which is 'Sanjait' subject, of course, to division in a partition suit. In the light of the nature of the interest of khaikars in both assessed and un-assessed land, it has to be considered as to what were the consequences of Gulab Singh becoming the sole khaikar at one time. Did the fact that he had become sole khaikar alter the nature of the Sanjait land' or did such 'Sanjait land' continue to be governed by its own special incidence namely, that it was land which was undivided common measured land so long as it was not effectively partitioned. In my view, by the mere fact that Gulab Singh became the sole khaikar at one time, the legal incidence attaching to 'Beparat' (unassessed) land could not be unilaterally changed by him. 11. Even if Gulab Singh remained in sole possession of the 'Beparat' (unassessed) land while he was the sole khaikar, as soon as fresh khaikars came into existence, the joint village community of khaikars came back into existence and their right in the undivided measured common land, namely, the 'beparat land' revived and the 'beparat land' which had hitherto been at the sole disposal of Gulab Singh became liable to enjoyment by other khaikars as 'Sanjait land'. That seems to be the reason why the later entry described the land as "Beparat Khaikaran". Therefore, even though there may not have been any direct transfer or surrender of 'beparat land', the other khaikars and the holders of the assessed land have become entitled to 'Beparat' (unassessed) land also In accordance with the rule governing the same. 12. Learned Counsel for the Appellants - the Defendants in the partition case-urged that since the 'beparat land' has been measured, it must be taken that when Gulab Singh became the sole khaikar, he became entitled to annex the same and treat it as a part of his khaikari holding. This doctrine of annexation can be applicable only to unmeasured land. When land is measured out an i is made available for the common use of the khaikars in a khaikari village or for the use of the hissedars in a village where the hissedars hold the land as khuakasht holders, no rights in the 'beparat land' can be created by unilateral action, nor can the incidence attaching to 'beparat land' be altered merely because at any given time there is only one hissedar or one khaikar. 13. To allow this to be done would in my view, alter the whole basis of the arrangement of village lands. Obviously, 'beparat land' is a soft of adjunct to 'parat land' enabling the individual holders of 'parat land' to enjoy the same more beneficially. If any other view were taken, a situation might arise where the khaikars would part with their 'parat land" while holding on to the 'Bepart' areas and claiming these to be their own even though they had not got the same specifically under a partition. The economy of the village would, in such a case, be gravely disturbed for in a village community, upto a point, common lands are a necessity. 14. In my view, the judgment appealed against is correct and I dismiss this appeal with costs.