Judgment :- 1. No error of law. 2. A co-owner who is in possession of the entire property on the understanding that he will account to the remaining co-owners for their due share of the profits the appellant 1st defendant's case that he was a lessee of his co-owner plaintiff in respect of the latter's share in the property has been rejected by the courts below is not a person who has agreed to pay rent or other consideration for being allowed to possess and enjoy the land of another so as to make him a tenant as defined by the body of S.2(57) of Act 1 of 1964. Nor is he a person who cultivates the land of another the land in this case is paddy land in the Kuttanad area for a remuneration and with the risk of cultivation so as to make him a licensee under S.2(33); nor again does he undertake the cultivation under an arrangement by which he is to share the produce with his co-owners so as to make him a varamdar under S.2(60). The appellant 1st defendant's claim to fixity under S.13 of the Act was therefore rightly dismissed by the courts below and the plaintiff's suit for partition and separate possession of his admitted share rightly decreed. 3. I dismiss this appeal with costs. Dismissed.