JUDGMENT Roy, J. - In this Civil Revision the only question which we have got to consider is whether an assignee of the right to recover profits, is a "co-sharer" within the meaning of S. 231 of the UP Tenancy Act of 1939, and whether a suit by him for recovery of his share of profits should be instituted in the civil court or in the revenue court. The Munsif was of the view that such a suit lay in the revenue court, as apparently it fell within group A of the 4th Schedule of the UP Tenancy Act. In appeal, the learned Civil Judge was of the contrary view and relying upon an unreported decision of this Court in Kr. Rohni Ramnaj Dhwaj Pd. Singh v. Bohrey Narain Das and Anr. (Civil Revision No. X of 1947 decided on 7-10-1947) held that the suit lay in the civil court. It appears from the decision aforesaid that the authorities bearing upon the question, were not laid before the learned single Judge, who decided that Civil Revision. There is, however, abundant authority in favour of the proposition that an assignee of the right to recover profits is a "cosharer" within the meaning of S. 231 of the UP Tenancy Act of 1939, and that a suit of the present nature must, therefore, be instituted in the revenue court. The Defendants-applicants rely upon the provisions of Sub-section (1) of S. 3 of the UP Tenancy Act, which says that: All words and expressions used to denote the possessor of any right, title or interest in land, whether the same be proprietary or otherwise, shall be deemed to include the predecessors and successors in right, title or interest of such person. 2. It may be contended that the provisions of S. 229 of the Agra Tenancy Act of 1926 have not been reproduced in the Act of 1939 and therefore, an assignee will not be a cosharer. The provisions were: The words 'lambardar' 'cosharer' muafidar' 'assignee of revenue' 'taluqdar' and 'superior propietor' in this chapter include also the heirs, legal representatives, executors, administrators and assignees of such persons. 3. The section appeared in the chapter dealing with the recovery of arrears of revenue and profits. The provisions in the Act of 1939 corresponding with the provisions of S. 229 are, however, those in Sub-section (l) of S. 3, which we have already quoted. 3. The section appeared in the chapter dealing with the recovery of arrears of revenue and profits. The provisions in the Act of 1939 corresponding with the provisions of S. 229 are, however, those in Sub-section (l) of S. 3, which we have already quoted. It is true that these provisions do not explicitly say that an assignee shall be in the same position as a co-sharer, but we think that the terms of the Sub-section are sufficiently wide to include assignees. There is nothing in those terms which justifies the conclusion that a successor must be the successor in the whole of the right, title or interest of a cosharer. 4. It was urged from the other side that a right to recover rents or profits is not an interest in land. But we cannot accept this contention. It seems to us that the right to recover the unsufruct is the greater part of the interest in the land. It was held by a Full Bench in Lallu Singh v. Chander Sen, 1934 ALJ 1 : AWR (H.C.) 39 that the assignee of a portion of an interest was an assignee within the meaning of S. 229 of the Act of 1926. The same argument applies to the provisions in the Act of 1939. We fully subscribe to the view expressed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Hukum Chand minor through Mangal Sen and Another Vs. Kashi Ram and Others, AIR 1945 All 350 when he held that a successor does not cease to be a successor if he does not acquire the whole of the right, title or interest of his predecessor, and that the right to recover rents or profits is undoubtedly a part of the interest of a cosharer in the land and if he chooses to tranfer that part of his interest the transferee becomes a successor to that extent. 5. The decision in Hukum Chand minor through Mangal Sen and Another Vs. Kashi Ram and Others, AIR 1945 All 350 was relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajendra Nath v. Ragho Ram 1946 ALJ 313 : AWR (HC) 411. There the facts were, however, somewhat different. In that case the transferee or assignee of the right to recover profits happened also to be a cosharer in the land. Kashi Ram and Others, AIR 1945 All 350 was relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajendra Nath v. Ragho Ram 1946 ALJ 313 : AWR (HC) 411. There the facts were, however, somewhat different. In that case the transferee or assignee of the right to recover profits happened also to be a cosharer in the land. It was argued in that case that S. 229 of the Agra Tenancy Act of 1926, having been omitted from the UP Tenancy Act of 1939, it must be assumed that the expression 'cosharer' no longer inlcudes the assignee of a cosharer. But that argument was not accepted by the learned Judges, who thought that this suggestion altogether ignored S. 3(1) of the Act of 1939. 6. In Shib Charan Singh v. Kunwal Pal Singh, 1944 ALW 195 another learned single Judge of this Court expressed his view on the same subject in similar terms, as was expressed later on in the subsequent case in Hukum Chand minor through Mangal Sen and Another Vs. Kashi Ram and Others, AIR 1945 All 350 cited above. It is therefore evident that there is abundant authority of this Court in support of the view that an assignee of the right to recover profits is a cosharer within the meaning of S. 231 of the UP Tenancy Act of 1939, and that a suit of the present nature must, in view of group A serial No. 15 of the 4th Schedule of the UP Tenancy Act, be instituted in the revenue court. The decision of the lower appellate court cannot, therefore, be supported. 7. We allow the revision, set aside the order passed by the lower appellate court on 6-3-1953, restore the order of the Munsif passed on 13-2-1951 and direct that the plaint be returned to the Plaintiff for presentation to proper court. The applicants shall get their costs of this revision from the Plaintiff opposite party.