JUDGMENT S.D. Singh, J. - This is a defendants' appeal arising out of suit No. 491 of 1943 of the Court of Munsif, Ballia West for a declaration that the plaintiffs were the adhivasis of the plots in suit and for possession thereof, if the plaintiffs were found to be out of possession. It appears that there was a criminal case between the parties under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, these plots were attached in the course of those proceedings and the crops which were then standing were harvested and sold. The plaintiffs, therefore, also asked for a declaration that they were entitled to withdraw the money in deposit in respect of the sale of the aforesaid standing crops. The plaintiffs also asked for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession over the plots. 2. The plots in question are fairly large in number and are situated in village Bharauli in District Ballia. The suit was contested by the defendants. Since a question relating to the adhivasi rights of the plaintiffs was involved an issue in respect of that allegation was referred to the Revenue Court. The Revenue Court recorded the finding that the plaintiffs were adhivasis of all the plots except three, viz., plots Nos. 68/5, 69 and 71/3. The Munsif heard the remaining issues and ultimately decreed the suit in respect of all the plots except the three plots aforesaid. 3. The defendants went up in appeal and the plaintiffs filed a cross-objection in respect of the three plots. The appeal was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Ballia, while the cross-objection was allowed and the suit decreed even in respect of these three plots. The defendants have consequently filed this second appeal. 4. While the appeal was preferred in respect of all the plots in dispute in the suit, the arguments were restricted to the three plots 68/5, 69 and 71/3. The appeal was, thus, pressed only in respect of these three plots and it was urged that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title as adhivasis in respect of these plots. It would, therefore, be necessary to state the facts only to the extent they relate to these plots. 5. The appeal was, thus, pressed only in respect of these three plots and it was urged that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title as adhivasis in respect of these plots. It would, therefore, be necessary to state the facts only to the extent they relate to these plots. 5. One Balkhira was the recorded occupant of these three plots in 1356 Fasli and, according to the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector, he was in cultivatory possession even in 1359 Fasli. Some time during that year, however, Balkhira died and the plaintiffs claimed to be his heirs. The plaintiffs' contention therefore, was that Balkhira became an adhivasi as he was the recorded occupant in 1356 Fasli, and was also in cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli and that the plaintiffs, therefore, acquired adhivasi rights as his heirs. The Assistant Collector made no reference to the rights of the plaintiffs as heirs to Balkhira in the right of his cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli. He referred only to the rights of Balkhira as an occupant in 1356 Fasli and held that only Balkhira could become an adhivasi under Section 20 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and not his heirs. The plaintiffs who filed cross-objection in the First Appellate Court did not challenge the findings that Balkhira was the recorded occupant in 1356 Fasli and was in cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli. They, however, relied upon sub-section (2) of Section 231 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which provides that when an adhivasi dies, his interest in the holding shall, in the matter of devolution, be governed by the provisions contained in Sections 171 to 175. The Civil Judge, therefore, held that adhivasi rights of Balkhira were inherited by the plaintiffs and that they became adhivasis of even these three plots. 6. The only question for determination in this second appeal, therefore, is whether the heirs of Balkhira could acquire adhivasi rights under Section 20 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or Section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 31 of 1952, even though they were themselves not recorded occupants in 1356 Fasli or in cultivatory possession of the plots in 1359 Fasli. 7. 7. Adhivasi rights are acquired by certain persons under Section 20 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or under Section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952, if they satisfy certain conditions. The conditions relevant for the purposes of this appeal are that the claimant should have been a recorded occupant in 1356 Fasli in the former case and in cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli in the latter. If these conditions are satisfied, the person so recorded or so in cultivatory possession would become an adhivasi. The person recorded as an occupant in 1356 Fasli was Balkhira and even the person who was in cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli was Balkhira. Balkhira could, therefore, acquire adhivasi rights under either of the two provisions. But according to the finding of the Assistant Collector which was not challenged before the Civil Judge, he died before July 1, 1952, with effect from which date adhivasi rights came into existence. Balkhira, therefore, never became an adhivasi of these plots and the plaintiffs who claim to be his heirs, were neither the recorded occupants in 1356 Fasli, nor were they in cultivatory possession of the plots in 1359 Fasli. There is no provision either under Section 20 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or under Section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952, that even the heirs of an occupant or a person in cultivatory possession would acquire adhivasi rights in these plots. They themselves do not satisfy the conditions prescribed under either of the two provisions and there is no provision under which they could inherit the rights of an occupant or the person in cultivatory possession before July 1, 1952. 8. Reference has been made by the First Appellate Court to sub section 2 of section 231 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, but that provision applies only when an adhivasi dies. As has been mentioned earlier, adhivashi came into existence only with effect from July 1, 1952. Since he died earlier he could not take advantage of either Section 20 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or Section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, and since Balkhira himself did not become an adhivasi, there is no question of succession of his rights as such under Section 231(2) aforesaid. 9. Since he died earlier he could not take advantage of either Section 20 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or Section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, and since Balkhira himself did not become an adhivasi, there is no question of succession of his rights as such under Section 231(2) aforesaid. 9. There is no reported decision of this Court on this point but the same view has been taken by the Board of Revenue in Ganga Dhar v. Jwala Prasad, 1955 RD 366 and several other cases, which it is not necessary to refer. 10. In that view, therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to adhivasi rights in the three plots 68/5, 69 and 71/3. 11. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court are modified to this extent that the suit of the plaintiffs will stand dismissed in respect of plots 69/5, 69 and 71/3. The decree of the trial court which gives complete direction regarding the grant of different reliefs will stand restored. Parties will bear their own costs of this appeal as also of the trial court as directed by the court. The plaintiffs will be entitled to get their costs of the first appeal from the defendants and would be liable to pay costs to them in respect of the cross-objection filed by them. 12. Leave to appeal is granted.