W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Tyrrell, J.
1. The plaintiff sues in the Revenue Court for a one-fifth share in certain profits of a village, which were divisible on the 1st July 1883. The defendant-lambardar resists the claim, on the ground that the plaintiff was not recorded as a recorded co-sharer on the 1st July 1883. The Judge and the Assistant Collector allowed this contention, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit; but this is an erroneous view of Section 93(h) of the Rent Act. In July 1883, the plaintiff was a recorded co-sharer, though his share was not specifically stated. The plaintiff was recorded in 'shamilat' with all the other pattidars.
2. This is an entry of a share of a co-sharer amounting to an interest within the meaning of Section 93(h). The lower Courts have wrongly held that, because this interest was not specifically defined in a fractional or separate form the suit would not lie. The order of the Lower Appellate Court is reversed, and this appeal decreed, and the case remanded, under Section 562 of the Code, for a decision on the merits. The costs of this appeal to be costs in the cause.