JUDGMENT
Rafique, J.
1. Radha Charan applied to the Revenue Court for partition and notices were accordingly issued on his application. Labhu and others objected to the partition of some land, trees, wells, etc., on the ground that when their ancestors sold the village to the ancestor of the applicant the vendors reserved to themselves and their heirs the said lands, trees, wells, etc., free of revenue. The applicant met the objection by raising various pleas, one of which was that the objectors not being recorded co-sharers had no locus standi. The Assistant Collector disallowed the plea and proceeded with the application for partition and the consideration of the merits of the objection under Clause 3 of Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act. He decided in favour of the objectors. Radba Charan preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge, who allowed the appeal on the ground that the objectors not being recorded co-sharers could not be heard. The objectors have come up in appeal to this Court and contend that no appeal lay to the District Judge, inasmuch as on the plea of the applicant they, the objectors, were not recorded co-sharers and could not object under Section 111 of the Land Revenue Act; the appeal should have been preferred to the Collector or the Commissioner under the other provisions of the Land Revenue Act. In support of this contention they rely on the following cases Habib Ullah v. Kushimba A.W.N. (1906) 199 : 3 A.L.J. 481 and Tota Ram v. Musammat Sahodra 2 Ind. Cas. 988. Both these cases bear out the contention of the appellants. I, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the lower Court’s order and direct that the memorandum of appeal be returned to the respondent to be presented to the proper Court. Costs are allowed to the appellant.
