1. The plaintiff in this case is the durpatnidar of the twelve-anna share of a certain estate. It appears that this estate was originally a one-anna or one-sixteenth of a larger estate; but that point is not material to the question with which we have now to deal, and for the purposes of this case, this one-anna share is taken as sixteen annas or a whole estate. This three-fourths share is registered on the Collectorate towzee under a separate number, 652, while the remaining one-fourth share is registered under number 654. Now it would  appear that this separate registration is merely for the purposes of the payment of the Government revenue; and it is admitted that the lands of the three-fourths or twelve-anna share and of the one-fourth or four-anna share have never been separated by metes and bounds. The plaintiff, as durpatnidar of the three-fourths share, measured the land in the occupation of the defendants, and served notice of enhancement under the provisions of the Rent Act. The Munsif and the District Judge have held that this case falls within the purview of the Full Bench decision in Guni Mahomed v. Moran I.L.R. 4 Cal. 96.
2. It has been contended before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the twelve-anna share constitutes a separate tenure, that the tenant has made a separate agreement for the payment of the rent thereof, and that therefore this twelve-anna share ought to be regarded in the light of a separate tenure or tenancy, the whole rent of which is payable to the plaintiff; and that the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to enhance the rent so payable to him as in respect of a separate tenure or holding.
3. We have carefully considered the argument addressed to us and the cases which have been quoted. With reference to these cases we think that most, if not all, of them refer not to holdings of cultivating ryots, but to intermediate interest existing between the zemindar at the top and the cultivating ryot at the bottom. The present case is one of a cultivating ryot, and it is sought to put into operation the enhancement provisions of the Rent Law. It appears, to us that, as the lands have never been separated by metes and bounds, insuperable difficulties would be created if the owner of a twelve-anna interest in undivided lands were allowed, under the provisions of the Rent Act, to enhance the rent of such share without making the proprietor of the remaining share a party to the suit. We are, therefore, of opinion that the decision of the Courts below is correct, and we dismiss the appeal with costs.