- (1.) BASHEER and Muneer Hasan have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20-1- 1994 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut.
(2.) BRIEFLY, stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff- appellants filed a suit under Section 229b/176 of the U. P. Z. A, and L. R. Act before the learned trial Court with the allegation that the proper ty in question is ancestral one and they alongwith defendants are co-sharers and according to the share the property should be divided. Plaintiff-appellants claimed their 1/3rd share in the land in dispute. The defendant- respondents filed written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff- appellants. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-ap pellants against which an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Meerut. The learned Additional Commis sioner after considering the evidence on record arrived at a conclusion that the decision of the learned trial Court is against the fact and law and the same was set aside by the learned Additional Com missioner by allowing the appeal. I have heared the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. It is undisputed that the property in question was recorded in the name of Jumma. After his death his one son Shakoor was mutated in the revenue records. His second son Sandal who died earlier could not be mutated nor his legal heirs were mutated in place of Sandal. It is evident from the record that Sandal and Shakoor both were born before the date of vesting i. e. 1963. The conclusion of the learned Additional Commissioner was that the plaintiff-appellants did not take any action regarding their share in the land in dispute just after the death of Jumma. Right from 1363 to 1393f not action was initiated by the plaintiff-appel lants. The learned Additional Commis sioner did not realise the intricacies of the Act and the provisions of law that even if the plaintiff-appellants did not take any action for their share in the land in dispute it will not deprive them of their share in the property in dispute because the property in question is ancestral one and Jumma's both sons Sandal and Shakoor where born before the date of vesting. The relevant extract of Khasra of 12 years will not give any right to a co- tenure holder on the basis of adverse possession. Possession of one co-sharer is possession of all the co-sharers. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Commissioner is contrary to the fact and the legal provisions of the Act.
(3.) I, therefore, feel that the judgment and decree dated 20-1-94 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner deser ves interference. I, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 20-1 - 94 passed by learned Additional Commis sioner and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 6-12- 1993 passed by the trial Court. Appeal allowed. .;