John Stanley, C.J.
1. I am of opinion that the judgments of the learned Judges of this Court from which this appeal has been preferred are not open to objection. They have very fully dealt with the facts and the law, and it is unnecessary for me to add anything to what they have said, save and except that I desire to make an observation upon the judgment in Achhey Lal v. Janki Prasad 29 A. 66 : 3 A.L.J. 735 : A.W.N. (1906) 274, to which judgment I was a party. In that case it was held that 'Neither a Civil nor Revenue Court can partition or divide an occupancy holding; such partition or division can only be affected out of Court with the consent of the land-holder.' If these words are interpreted as meaning that tenants cannot agree to divide a holding amongst them selves, in my opinion it goes too far. There is no objection to joint tenants agreeing among themselves to occupy and cultivate distinct parts of the joint holding, provided that their so doing in no respect prejudices the rights of the landholder. Under such an agreement, the tenants continue to be liable to the landlord for the entire rent and the arrangement between them is not a partition which is enforceable as between them and the landlord. A partition to bind the landlord must be a partition with his consent. I, therefore, would dismiss this appeal with costs.
2. I also am of opinion that there is no force in this appeal. The former suit was not one for partition of a holding or the distribution of the rent thereof, but was a suit for exclusive possession of certain plots of land which the then plaintiff claimed to be his separate property. The Court which tried that suit had jurisdiction to entertain it and its judgment has the effect of res judicata. I agree in dismissing the appeal.
3. The order of the Court is that the appeal be dismissed with costs.