Judgment :- 1. The plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. The short facts leading to the appeal are as follows: The suit property measuring a common extent of 1 acre 32 cents out of 2 acres, 64 cents in G. S. 227, was purchased by Mariaselvam alias Ameena Bibi on 12th January, 1967 under Ex. A1 from one Ramanathan. It is a coconut tope. The said Ameena Bibi died leaving behind the first plaintiff, her husband, and plaintiffs 2 and 3, their tons. Ever since Ex. A1 the first plaintiff was in enjoyment of the property. The other half share, viz, 1 acre 32 cents, belonged to the defendant by reason of her purchase under Ex.B 6, dated 14th May, 1964. The parties have been in enjoyment of the said G.S. 227 in common without any division. The defendant did not care for division of the property when asked for by the plaintiffs. Hence the suit was filed for partition of the suit property into two equal shares by metes and bounds and for delivery of possession of one such share to the plaintiffs. The case of the defendant was that her husband Chinna Payyan was enjoying the entire 2 acres 64 cents in G.S. 227 consisting of nanja and acconut tope on lease from the original owner Sundaram Iyer, that after the death of Sundaram Iyer, he continued to be a lessee under the heir of Sundaram Iyer, that her husband then died, that thereafter the defendant purchased an undivided half share of the said G.S. 227 under Ex.B6, dated 14th May, 1964, that she took on lease the other common half from the first plaintiffs wife under Ex.B1 dated 28th April, 1967, that then again, after the lapse of that lease, another lease same to be executed under Ex.B9, dated 16th May, 1968 by Mariaselvam, that the lease amounts have been properly paid and that the first plaintiff never asked for partition. The defendant farther states that she has no objection for the partition. However, she contends that possession cannot be delivered in favour of the plaintiff, because the defendant would be entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955.) 2. The defendant farther states that she has no objection for the partition. However, she contends that possession cannot be delivered in favour of the plaintiff, because the defendant would be entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955.) 2. The plaintiffs, in their reply statement, stated that it is true that the defendant took the suit property on lease from the first plaintiffs wife, but she surrendered possession of the same on 13th June, 1969. According to them, after getting possession, the property was leased out to one Abdul Kareem Rowther for a period of one year from 13th June, 1970, The defendant is aware of the same. She also executed a lease in favour of Abdul Kareem Rowther in respect of her share of G.S. 227. Pursuant to the lease, the said Abdul Kareem Rowther was in enjoyment of the entire extent of G.S. 227 for one year and surrendered possession to the respective parties. The plaintiffs state that the defendant is not a cultivating tenant and therefore, not entitled to the benefits of the Act. 3. The learned District Munsif held that the surrender pleaded by the plaintiffs was not true, that the defendant alone was in possession of the entire G.S. 227, that Abdul Kareem Rowther was not cultivating the shares of both the plaintiffs and that the defendant was not a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefits under Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. On these findings, a preliminary decree for partition was passed. 4. Thereupon A.S. No. 282 of 1974 was filed before the District Court by the defendant. It was held that the defendant was a cultivating tenant and therefore, the plaintiffs would be entitled only for partition with symbolical possession, but not actual possession. Hence, the plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal in so far as the decree of the lower appellate Court directed merely symbolical possession. 5. Mr. Sivamani, learned counsel for the appellants urges for my consideration the only point that when once the defendant admittedly came to purchase under Ex. B6 an undivided half share of G. S. 227, of an extent of 2 acres 64 cents, and the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title, viz, Mariaselvam alias Ameena Bibi having come to purchase the other half share under Ex. Sivamani, learned counsel for the appellants urges for my consideration the only point that when once the defendant admittedly came to purchase under Ex. B6 an undivided half share of G. S. 227, of an extent of 2 acres 64 cents, and the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title, viz, Mariaselvam alias Ameena Bibi having come to purchase the other half share under Ex. A. 1 on 12th January, 1967, the relationship between the parties is that of co owners and therefore, there cannot be a lease by one co-owner and consequently the defendants cannot claim the benefits under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Projection Act 1955. In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Kuppusamt Chettiar v. Balagurumurthi Chettiar 1965 1 M.L.J. 86=77 L.W. 559 and also on the unreported Judgment in Ratnam v. Anmaehalam Chettiar A.S. 138 of 1975 (judgment of this Court, dated 25tk Marchm, 1977.) According to the learned eounel, though these decisions relate to the benefits of a tenant under Tamil Nadu Aet 18 of 1960, the ratio of those decisions will squarely apply to this ease. In other words, on purchase by the defendant under Ex. B 6, dated 14th May, 1964, there is a merger of the rights of the lessee with that of absolute ownership. Consequently there is a co-ownership, and one co-owner, viz., Mariaselvem cannot create a valid lease. 6. As against this, Mr. K. Hariharan, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that the proposition of law that one co-owner cannot create a valid lease so as to defeat the rights of the other co-owners, cannot be demurred. However, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants in this case ignores the earlier lease granted by the original owner Sundaram Iyer in favour of the husband of the defendant with regard to the entire extent of 2 acres 64 cents. Therefore, onee the defendant comes to possess an undivided half share, viz., 1 acre 32 cents in this survey number, that could be retained by her as owner by reason of her purchase under Ex. B 6, while with reference to the other undivided half she could continue to be a tenant, because, under Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955, she, being the legal heir of the tenant, viz., her husband, could be a cultivating tenant. B 6, while with reference to the other undivided half she could continue to be a tenant, because, under Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955, she, being the legal heir of the tenant, viz., her husband, could be a cultivating tenant. The decisions cited on behalf of the appellants are distinguishable, because in those decisions for the first time the leasehold rights sprung by a lease from the co-owner, whereas in the instant case, the lease was by an absolute owner at a time when the statute, viz., Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955, was in force, Therefore, even rejecting Exs. B 1 and B 3, the leases under which the defendant continues to be in possession, the statutory protection and the benefits are not taken away. 7. In reply, it is contended by Mr, Sivamanl that the definite averment in this case by the plaintiffs and the finding of the lower appellate Court is that it is only by virtue of Bxs. B 1 and B 3 the defendant claims right as a lessee and consequently benefits under the Act. 8. As a proposition of law, no exception could ever be taken to the submission that one co-owner cannot create valid lease so as to enable the lessee to claim a right under the statute, be it either the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 or Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1985, because it is well settled in law that every part of a joint property belongs to eaeh of the co-owners and one cannot predicate the particular part to ultimately a co-owner might become entitled to. In the Instant ease, the following facts are gatherable from the pleadings and the evidence on record. Admittedly, the property of an extent of 2 acres 64 cents originally belonged to Sundaram Iyer who leased out the same in favour of Chiona Payyan, husband of the defendant. After the death of Sundaram Iyer, the husband of the defendant took on lease the property from the heirs of Sundaram Iyer. Chinnapayyan died in July 1965. In between these dates, the defendant had come to purchase the property under Ex. B 6, dated 14th May, 1964. Though she purchased an undivided one half, she was the owner of an undivided one ha f and was a lessee with reference to the other half. It is only under Ex. A 1, dt. Chinnapayyan died in July 1965. In between these dates, the defendant had come to purchase the property under Ex. B 6, dated 14th May, 1964. Though she purchased an undivided one half, she was the owner of an undivided one ha f and was a lessee with reference to the other half. It is only under Ex. A 1, dt. 12th January, 1967 Mariaselvam alias Ameena B bi, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs came to purchase the property. If, even before her purchase under Ex. B 6, the defendant was a tenant and thereby entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadn Act 25 of 1955, I am unable to see how she would be deprived of those benefiti, merely because the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title, viz, Ameena Bibi alias Mariaselvam, came to purchase the property under Bx.A1 on 12th January, 1967. It is true that Ameena Bibi become a co-owner along with the defendant Palaniammal. But what we are concerned here is about the benefits under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. Learned counsel for the appellants would strenuously urge that the finding of the lower appellate Court is that the defendant claims the benefits under the Act only by virtue of her leases, Exs. B1 and B 3. This finding is palpably wrong. As a matter of fact the evidence of D.W.1 is also to the same effect as paragraph 4 of the written statement, viz. that her husband was a tenant under Sundaram Iyer and thereafter under the heirs of Sundaram Iyer, etc Even if we ignore Exs. B1 and B2, the statutory benefits which had flowed in favour of the defendent in July, 1965 would not ever get defeated by reason of the subsequent leases. Therefore, either way the continues to be a statutory tenant. In Kuppuswami Chettiar v. Balagurumurthi 1965 1 M.L.J. 86=77 L.W. 559, a Division Bench of this Court held that where a co-owner of a building sells an undivided share therein to another and obtains a lease from the vendee of the undivided share conveyed by him to the vendee, he cannot claim to be entitled to the protection afforded by the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, because in such a ease there is no lease of any building as defined in S. 2(1) of the Act, even assuming the arrangement to be one by way of a lease. This decision can have no application to the facts of this case for two reasons—(1). It proceeded upon the definition of ‘building’ occurring in S. 2(1) of Act 18 of 1960, which took within it even a part of the building. Therefore, it was held, ‘In a case of this kind where one co-tenant allows another Co-tenant to enjoy his undivided share, it cannot be said that he has such exclusive right of the property as to be capable of being let out, much less can it be said that any defiuite part of the building has been let out. No co-tenant can say that he is the owner of any part or designated part of the building. His interest will be to the extent of the share owned by him in the entirety of the property’. (2) For the first time the right of the lessee came in by reason of an arrangement of lease from a co-owner. In the instant case, be it remembered that it was the original owner Sundaram Iyer who leased out the property in favour of Chinna Payyan, husband of the defendant, who became entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1955, which benefits accrued in favour of the defendant as the wife and legal heir of Chinna Payyan. Similarly, in the unreported judgment of this Court in App. No. 158 of 1975, the Bench was concerned with a case where the property belonged to one Vellaichami Chettiar, Pichaikutti Chettiar and Arunachalam Chettiar and two of them, viz. Vellaichami Chettiar and Pichaikutti let out the suit property to the first defendant. The first defendant claimed protection under Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960. Relying upon the judgment in Kuppusami Chettiars case 1985 1 M.L.J. 86.=77 L.W. 539, it was held that the first defendant therein could not claim such a benefit. Here again it requires to be noted that the lease came to be granted by two of the co-owners in favour of the first defendant therein. But, that is not the case here. Therefore, the above two decisions are clearly distinguishable. 9. Consequently, I hold there are no merits in this second appeal which is here by dismissed. However, there will be no order at to costs.