Sundara Aiyar, J.
1. I am unable to sustain the decision of the District Munsif in this case. The plaintiff sued to recover monies paid by him on account of kist of certain land in the possession of the defendant, which, he alleged, the defendant was bound to pay to him. The plaintiff's case was really based on a contract. By a partition agreement between him and his brother, it was provided that the defendant should enjoy certain land for her maintenance and pay the kist due on it to the plaintiff and his brother, Rs. 8 to each of them. The District Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff could claim no relief on the basis of the partition-deed because the defendant was not a party to it. But it was under the partition-deed that she got her right to hold the land. Though not a party to the contract, she was one who took a benefit under it, subject to (he burdens placed on her by that document. She was, therefore, bound to pay the kist to the plaintiff and his brother as provided therein. In fact she got possession of the land by means of a suit based on the, partition-deed.
2. The District Munsif has not disposed of the other contentions which the defendant raised. His decree must, therefore, be reversed and the suit remanded for fresh disposal on the other questions raised by the defendants. The costs of this petition will abide the result.