Coutts, J.@mdashThese appeals arise out of rent suits which have been dismissed because the suits were brought in respect of only a portion of the holdings.
2. The plaintiffs have appealed and the ground taken by the learned Vakil for the appellant is that the plaintiff is, at all events, entitled to the rent which he claimed for a portion of the holdings as rent for the whole of the holdings because it is less than the amount which the defendants alleged to be the rent for the whole of the holdings.
3. I am unable to accept this contention. The suits were for rent of the holdings of the defendants, the holdings being described by certain survey numbers. These survey numbers, however, do not represent the whole of the holdings and it is clear therefore that the plaintiff cannot get the rent which he has claimed. To decree such suits would be in effect to allow a splitting up of the tenancy with out any ascertainment of the portion of the rent which is due from the particular portion of the holdings for which the rent is claimed.
4. The suits have, in my opinion, been rightly dismissed and I would dismiss these appeals with costs.
5. Das, J.
6. I agree.
