1. We think that the conclusion arrived at by the lower Appellate Court is correct.
2. Any acts of one or more of several joint tenants which possibly might operate as a forfeiture of tenancy, would not entitle the landlord to exact that penalty as against all the tenants; moreover the plaintiff zamindar's case has throughout been that the tenure cannot be split up by any arrangement among the tenants as between themselves, and that he is not bound to, and will not acknowledge the validity of, any such arrangement by which separate specific rights are created.
3. We cannot now allow him in second appeal to alter his case and to claim a forfeiture on any specific shares of the joint tenancy so as to entitle him to recover khas possession of those shares. The landlord's appeal must therefore be dismissed.
14. The appeal of the assignee of the rights of some of the sharers must also be dismissed, as it has been found on the authority of reported cases that the alienation of a tenure of this description (a surborakari tenure) in Cuttack, and a fortiori any portion of it, is invalid without the consent of the landlord.