JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, J. - This appeal is by the Defendants as both the Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit. The Plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that he is the sikimi-tenant in respect of plot No. 817 bearing an area of nine decimals in village Sualo. He conceded that he has no interest in the six cocoanut trees and one mango tree standing on the said plot. His case, briefly stated, is as follows: The Plaintiff and one Nila Moharana were the original sikimi-tenants in respect of the suit-plot, and were jointly recorded in the record-of-rights. Their immediate landlord was one Jagannath Jena. This landlord was possessing only the trees standing on the plot. Jagannath sold his interest in the plot to the Defendants in 1944 by two registered sale-deeds dated 24-2-44 & 3-3-44 which are respectively Exts. B and A. Thereafter Nila Maharana died leaving his adopted son Sagar Maharana. In & partition between the Plaintiff and Sagar, who is Defendant-4, the whole suit-plot was allotted to the share of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff continued in possession of the plot thereafter by payment of rent. During 1962 settlement, the Defendants attempted to get the plot recorded in their names to the exclusion of the Plaintiff and to disturb the latter?s possession. This gave the cause of Action for the present suit. 2. The Defendants denied all the allegations of the Plaintiff and raised the technical pleas that the suit is barred by limitation, had for defect of parties and also grossly undervalued. They denied that the Plaintiff or Nila Maharana had ever any title to the suit property. 3. Both the Courts held that the Plaintiff and Nila Maharana were the original sikimi-tenants and since it was a joint tenancy, on the death of Nila, his interest devolved on the Plaintiff by survivorship thereby making him the Bole sikimi-tenant in respect of the entire plot? and the Plaintiff having been in possession throughout he was entitled to the decree prayed for. 4. and the Plaintiff having been in possession throughout he was entitled to the decree prayed for. 4. The only point raised Is that there was no pleading that this was a case of joint tenancy and it is impossible, in absence of any pleading and evidence, to infer any joint tenancy I in favour of the Plaintiff and Nila Maharana As in law the sikimi-tenanoy is not heritable, on the death of a sikimi-tenant, his interest reverts to the landlord. One to operation of this law, the interest of Nila reverted to Jagannath Jena or his successor-in-interest, viz. the Defendants who must be deemed to be in possession of Nila?s interest. The Plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to the declaration of his interest in regard to the whole I plot. 5. It appears to me that this contention is correct. Sikimi-tenancy right, as is (sic) known, is not heritable. It means that sikimi-right is not subject to any mode of devolution, either by succession or by survivorship. Thus, on death of Nila, his right cannot go to the Plaintiff but must revert to the landlord. That apart, the record-of-right shows that the Plaintiff and Nila have been jointly recorded as sikimi-tenants. Since they could not have in herited the same they must have acquired it by a contract or grant. There is authority for the proposition that even as contractors or grantees, the Plaintiff and Nila, as member of a coparcenary, will take as tenants-in-common unless a contrary intention appears from the grant or contract. There is no evidence of that intention in this case. It has also been held in some cases that the Court must always lean against holding any particular grant as a joint grant to which the principle of joint tenancy may be attracted, and that the presumption must always be in favour of a tenancy-in-common rather than joint tenancy. That has been presumably so held because as has been laid down by the Privy Council the principle of joint tenancy is unknown to Hindu Law except in a coparcenary between members of an undivided family. See Jogeswar Narain Deo v. Ramchund Datt and Ors. 23 I.A. 37, Bahu Rani and Anr. v. Rajendra Bakhsh Singh 60 I.A. 95, and Shridhar Ghose v. Harimohan Sahu ILR 1963 Cutt. 935. This presumption ha also not been rebutted. See Jogeswar Narain Deo v. Ramchund Datt and Ors. 23 I.A. 37, Bahu Rani and Anr. v. Rajendra Bakhsh Singh 60 I.A. 95, and Shridhar Ghose v. Harimohan Sahu ILR 1963 Cutt. 935. This presumption ha also not been rebutted. Viewed from this angle also joint recording of the Plaintiff and Nila would not, without anything more, create a case of joint tenancy having an incident of survivorship attached to it, but must be presumed to give rise to only a case of tenancy in common, and in absence of anything to the contrary, the interests of The two recorded tenants would be equal; in other words, Nila would have a half interest in the plot. Nila?s interest must revert to the landlord on his death, and the landlord must be deemed to have got back that possession which Nila had. The landlord, as admitted by the Plaintiff, had the right to go upon the land and enjoy the fruits of the trees, and was exercising the same. The landlord must, in the circumstances, be deemed to be in joint possession with the Plaintiff in respect of the suit plot. The landlord?s interest which originally vested in Jagannath Jena having come to the hands of the Defendants, the latter also must be deemed to be in joint possession with the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled only to a declaration of his sikimi-right in respect of the half of the plot, and the Defendant-Appellants having the balance half interest, The Plaintiff is entitled to joint possession with them. The appeal accordingly succeeds in part. The decree of the Court below is modified to the extent that the Plaintiff is declared to be a sikimi-tenant in respect of A0.0.04? (that is half the area of the suit plot), and is entitled to be in possession of the plot jointly along with the Defendants. In the circumstances of the case each party is to bear his own costs throughout.