What is the ruling regarding maintenance expenses when two partners jointly own the original crop and one refuses to maintain it?

Primary text

The principle underlying the differing opinions on compelling expenditure for the crop is derived from the case where a shared wall collapses and one partner calls the other to contribute to its rebuilding, but the second partner refuses. The maintenance expenses should be shared between them proportionally to the value of each one's right, just as if they were partners in the original crop.