( 1 ) THIS revision petition preferred by defendants 2 to 4 in OS. 31/71 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Mangalore is directed against the order made on IA. 4 in the said suit. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF and defendant 1 are brothers. They are Muslims and it is admitted that the plaintiff has a half share in the suit properties. Deft. 1 who was the sole defendant when the suit was instituted for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's onev half share, contended that he has leased all the suit properties which are agricultural lands to, defendants 2 to 4 who are none other than the sons of defendant 1. In view of the stand taken by defendant 1, the plaintiff got defendants 2 to 4 impleaded in the suit who contended that they are the tenants entitled tp the protection under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. ( 3 ) A number of issues were framed in the suit. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 of the additional issues raise the question whether the alleged lease set up by the defendants is binding on the plaintiff. That is the substance of thoseissues. There are other issues raising the question whether defendants 2 to 4 are tenants. Defendants 2 to 4 made the application to refer the additional issues Nos. 1 and 6 to the 'court' as originally defined in the Land reforms Act. The Court below being of the opinion that the stage for referring the said issue has not arisen and that it would arise only if additional issues Nos. 2 and 3 are held against the plaintiff, rejected the application. ( 4 ) IT is against the said order that this revision petition has been preferred. The Court below, in my opinion, was right in postponing the question of referring Issues Nos. 1 and 6. An alienation made by one co-owner, is not binding on the other co-owners. A lease is also an act of alienation. If the alleged lease, assuming it to be true-is not binding on the plaintiff then, there is no question of referring the issue of tenancy set up by defendants 2 to 4. In a similar situation, a Bench of this Court of which I was ft member has held in RFA. 26/68 connected with RFA. If the alleged lease, assuming it to be true-is not binding on the plaintiff then, there is no question of referring the issue of tenancy set up by defendants 2 to 4. In a similar situation, a Bench of this Court of which I was ft member has held in RFA. 26/68 connected with RFA. 62/68 (disposed of on 21-7-1971) that in a suit for partition the issue of tenancy ordinarily does not arise. If it were otherwise, most of the junior members of an aliyasantana family or even a Mitakshara family can be deprived of their shares by the person in management putting his own children or near relations as tenants. I do not think that the Legislature, by enacting the Land reforms Act, ever intended that such a situation should arise. The substance of the case of the plaintiff is that the alleged lease set up by the defendants assuming that to be true, is not valid and binding on the platetiff who is a co-owner entitled to a half share. If such a lease is valid and binding on the non-alienating co-owner, then the entire suit property would have vested in the Govt on 1-3-1974. That would result in great injustice, the order made by the Court below is absolutely correct and calls for" no interference in revision. Accordingly, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .