ORDER : Satish Chandra, J. The dispute in the present case relates to certain plots in village Misrauti. It appears that the Respondents had filed a suit for declaration and partition under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the present Petitioners in relation to plots situate in village Misrauti as well as village Kodaila. The trial court held that in village Kodaila both parties had a share, but in the property situate in village Misrauti the Defendants' branch were exclusively the tenure-holders. The Plaintiffs had no share. On these findings the suit was decreed only in relation to the plots in village Kodaila. It was dismissed with regard to the property situate in village Misrauti. 2. In consolidation proceedings a dispute arose with regard to the plots in village Misrauti which were the subject matter of the previous partition suit. The Deputy Director held that the previous decree will be binding between the parties, but it will not operate as res judicata, because the right of partition is a continuing right and a second suit for co-tenancy rights and partition is not barred. 3. The proposition of law propounded by the Deputy Director appears to me astounding. When the co-ownership of a particular litigant is held not to have been established, there is no question of his having any right of partition, much less the alleged right continuing after the decree in a suit for partition. In the present case the Respondents were held not to be co-owners in respect of the property in village Misrauti. On that finding their supposed right to partition vanished. It could not possibly continue, because the right of partition is an attribute of the right of co-ownership, If a person is not a co-owner, he cannot possibly have a right of partition, which he could agitate times out of number. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has invited my attention to Tara Kishore Das Vs. Beharu Barman and Others. In that case it was held that a right to obtain partition as a right inherent in joint ownership of property. It is a natural and legal incident of ownership, which could not be denied to a co-owner of the property so long as his right subsists. Beharu Barman and Others. In that case it was held that a right to obtain partition as a right inherent in joint ownership of property. It is a natural and legal incident of ownership, which could not be denied to a co-owner of the property so long as his right subsists. The mere fact that at an earlier occasion he could not obtain partition is no ground for holding that the right of the co-owner to seek partition is barred for ever. 5. This case is not applicable at all. In this case the right to co-ownership WAS recognised (?) exist, and on that basis it was held that the fact that partition had not been effectuated on the earlier occasion will not deprive a co-owner to have his share divided. This authority also shows that the right of partition is inherent in the joint ownership of property. Obviously, if a person is not a co-owner, he cannot possibly have a right of partition. 6. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director is set aside, and that of the Settlement Officer is restored. The Petitioners will be entitled to cost.