JUDGMENT 1. THIS rule under section 115 of the procedure Code (5 of 1908) obtained by the unsuccessful applicants for preemption under section 24 of the West, bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act (20 of 1949) depends on the correct reading of the relevant khatians, aided a little by two sale-deeds. No wonder, therefore, that neither party calls oral evidence at the trial. 2. ON or about Septembr 30, 1966, one Bholanath Bhattacharjya, son of manindra Chandra Bhattacharjya, the sole recorded non-agricultural tenant in khanda khatian No. 333 of mouza khairakurhi, sold, for Rs. 999, his tenancy comprising three plots - 739, 740 and 740/1828 - recorded in his undivided hishya of 7 gandas and 2 karas, and bearirg a separate jama of 2 as and 2 pies, to Ram Ratan, Manmatha and shanti Ram, sens of Panchanan Pal. That led Chakradhar, Sasadhar, Kamala kanta, Radha Mohon and Madan Mohan, sons of Sudha Krishna Ghosh Mondal, to file the application they did on january 19, 1967, for pre-emption, on the allegation of their being co-sharers of bholanath, even though khanda khatian no. 333 records Bholanath alone as the tenant. Their application fails in both the courts below, on the finding that cosharers they are not. Hence this rule. 3. KHATIANS apart- and to khatians i come presently - the very saledeed of the petitioners, emphasized on behalf of the purchasers opposite party before me belie their claim of being co-sharers. Marked exhibit 2 at the trial, it shows sale on June 5, 1957, to the petitioners by Sarat kumar Bandopadhyay, son of Devagati bandopadhyay, of his share to the extent of 3 annas 6 gandas 2 karas and 2 krantis, recorded exclusively in khanda khatian No. 334, comprising plots 739, 740 and 741 in proportion to the vendor's share, admeasuring accordingly 87 acre, out of the total area of 5.22 acres, and bearing a separate jama of re. 1-2 as 11 pies. In this sale-deed, the second surname Mondal is dropped from the names of the petitioners. But that does not matter, because the father's name and other details agree, proclaiming their identity. What matters is the creation of this khanda khatian no. 334 for the retained land of sarat Kumar with a separate jama of re. 1-2 as. In this sale-deed, the second surname Mondal is dropped from the names of the petitioners. But that does not matter, because the father's name and other details agree, proclaiming their identity. What matters is the creation of this khanda khatian no. 334 for the retained land of sarat Kumar with a separate jama of re. 1-2 as. 11 pies, carved out of old khatian No. 2, exhibit 1, where Sarat kumar's father, Devagati, was recorded under the uma group as the proprietor (Zemindar) with his share entered as 3 annas 8 gandas 2 karas and 2 krantis: just the share for which Sarat Kumar had a khanda khatian (No. 334) as respects the land retained by him. That being so, the petitioners, the purchasers of the interest in khanda khatian no. 334, cannot be the co-sharers of the interest in another khanda khatian (No. 333) created for the land retained by Bholanath Bhattacharjya, whose father Manindra Chandra bhattacharjya, just like Sarat Kumar's father, was recorded under the Cha group in old khatian No. 2 as a Zamindar with a share of 15 gandas. Still to regard the petitioners as co-sharers in the separate jama of 2 as. and 2 pies of khanda khatian no. 333 is to destroy the very basis of the creation of khanda khatians and to give them what their own sale-deed does not. 4. BUT, it is said on behalf of the petitioners, khanda khatian No. 333 of bholanath, and now of his vendees, the opposite party Pals, does record in the remarks column on the first page: "samil khajna khatian No. 2", and khatian No. 2 in turn records the petitioners, the five Ghosh Mondal brothers, in column No. 13, under the Ga group, each having a share of 2 gandas 2 karas and 2 krantis. Therefore, the contention concludes, the Ghosh Mondals must be the co-sharers of Bholanath, the vendor. I am unable to agree for more reasons than one. First: it is not a case of the old may-samil entry recording under the column khajana one consolidated jama governing as many khatians as the jama is spread over. It is a case of a distinct and separate jama of 2 as and 2 pies recorded in khanda khatian No. 333 and another distinct and separate jama of es. First: it is not a case of the old may-samil entry recording under the column khajana one consolidated jama governing as many khatians as the jama is spread over. It is a case of a distinct and separate jama of 2 as and 2 pies recorded in khanda khatian No. 333 and another distinct and separate jama of es. 2,163-12 as recorded in khatian No. 2, out of which khanda khatian No. 333 has sqrung up, as the entry in the latter openly proclaims: "khanda of khatian no. 2-vide the Estates Acquisition Act 1953". Second: Khanda literally means something which has been cut off. Khanda khatian No. 333 is just that, cut off from khatian No. 2 with a separate jama, for the sole tenant, Bholanath, for land retained by him, just as khatian no. 334, khanda again, is for the land retained by Sarat, the vendor of the ghosh Mondals, with a distinct and separate jama of Rs. 1-2 as 11 pies. By such samil khajana entries, these distinct and separate jamas are neither wiped out nor merged in the bigger separate jama. Were that so, the labour for creation of khanda khatians, with separate jamas and, necessarily, separate tenancies, would be in vain. Third: worse still, it would run counter to the very basic requirement of the Estates Acquisition Act 1953 (1 of 1954), providing for retention of land up to the prescribed ceiling with a separate tenancy for that: section 5, sub-section 1, clause (c), proviso, read with section 6, sub-section 1, clause (c), also sub-section 2, and section 42, sub-section 1, clause (ii). Fourth: a corollary to what just goes before is that, with khanda khatians gone, and separate tenancies for land retained up to the ceiling gone too,-and that would be the plain result if I read khatians in a way the petitioners want me to-there would crop up again, indirectly though, latifundia, to destroy which the Estates Acquisition Act is there all these years. The example furnished by the petitioners' claim is that they would hold not only khatian no. 2 land but also land in. all khanda khatians carved out of khatian No. 2 and with separate tenancies too retained by individual owners. A clear reductio ad absurdun. The example furnished by the petitioners' claim is that they would hold not only khatian no. 2 land but also land in. all khanda khatians carved out of khatian No. 2 and with separate tenancies too retained by individual owners. A clear reductio ad absurdun. Fifth: khanda khatian No. 333 records, and very rightly too, Bholanath as the sole non-agricultural tenant, on a jama of 2 annas and 2 pies, under the State, "as if the State had been the intermediary," to quote the language of section 5, sub-section 1, clause (C); whereas khatian No. 2 records the Ghose Mandals, as also also many others, under different groups Ka to Da, and very rightly too, as maliks (proprietors), on a jama of Rs. 2,163 as. 12. So, samil khajana entry in khanda khatian No. 333 will make the separate jama of 2 as and 2 pies of the non-agricultural tenant samil with the separate jama of Rs. 2,163 as. 12 of the maliks. Another reductio ad absurdum. Strictly speaking, jamas are no more. All is now revenue payable to the State. But the same approach holds good. No merger of two separate revenues is seen; nor the wiping out of the one. Sixth : necessarily, therefore, the samil khajana entry in the remarks column of khanda khatian No. 333 read with mai khatian entry in the parent khatian No. 2-a jer-ija khatian, as it is called in settlement diction-does no more than record the historical fact of the fission of khatian No. 2, necessitated by the retention of land by each owner up to the ceiling, into so many splinter khatians. That this is so becomes manifest from the entry in khatian No. 2 itself : mai khanda khatians 323-342 and 352-372, of which Bholanath's khanda khatian No. 333 (now the Pals opposite party's) is one, and the petitioners' khanda khatian No. 334 (formerly their vendor Sarat's) is another. Nay more ; khanda khatian No. 330, another jer-ija khatian, of none else than Radha Mohan ghosh Mandol, one of the petitioning brothers before me, and a non-agricultural tenant, on a jama of 2 as. and 4 pies, is one too. Seventh : the key-note of the khanda khatians is therefore separation, separation and separation: separation in jamas and necessarily separation in tenancies too, which undivided hishyas of land recorded therein cannot mar. and 4 pies, is one too. Seventh : the key-note of the khanda khatians is therefore separation, separation and separation: separation in jamas and necessarily separation in tenancies too, which undivided hishyas of land recorded therein cannot mar. They cannot, because an undivided share of land does constitute a holding too: section 3, clause 5 of the Bengal Tenancy act, 8 of 1885,-too good a definition for the Estates Acquisition Act as well, by virtue of section 2, clause (p) thereof nor does 00 (Zero Zero) entry as to the area of some of the undivided hishyas. An entry as this does not connote 'no. land'. The entry hishya in column No. 25 shows that, in fact, it is not zero. Only, less than 1/100th part of an acre defies measurement by a conventional instrument like an acre-comb and is, therefore, recorded as zero. That has been the convention in settlement proceedings throughout. This is then how I read the khatians. Reading them so, the only conclusion i can come to is that the petitioners before me, the Ghosh Mandals, are not, and cannot be, the co-sharers of the vendor Bholanath recorded as the sole tenant of khanda khatian No. 333 on a jama of 2 as and 2 pies. 5. OF the decisions I have been referred to, only two appear to be relevant, in this context. Both are cases under section 26f of the Bengal Tenancy act. One is a Bench decision : (1)Abinash v. Chakradhar, (1951) 55 CWN 717, the ratio of which is this : If Land be split up only, but not the holding, the joint status of the co-sharers remains, and an application under section 26f lies. Another is the decision of. G. N. Das, J. in (2) Debendra v. Ganensra, (1949) 53 CWN 107, the ratio of which on the point is : splitting up under section 88 apart, partition amongst tenants does sever their joint status. The case before me shows splitting up for land retained, with a separate tenancy on a separate rent, the land being undivided though, with the result that there is mo co-sharer tenant in the tenancy so split up, and necessarily no right of pre-emption, which avails a co-sharer only. 6. The case before me shows splitting up for land retained, with a separate tenancy on a separate rent, the land being undivided though, with the result that there is mo co-sharer tenant in the tenancy so split up, and necessarily no right of pre-emption, which avails a co-sharer only. 6. THE conclusion come to by the courts below appears, therefore, to be plainly right, though their approach to the problem is not just the approach I have made in the foregoing lines. In the result, the Rule fails and do stand discharged, but without costs, upon all I see here.