JUDGMENT Mithan Lal, J. - This second appeal filed by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for possession and damages. The plaintiff alleged that the plots in dispute were khudkasht of the plaintiff of which he became a bhumidhar on the date of vesting. The defendants were said to have entered into wrongful possession in 1357F. It was also alleged that the entries in Khasra of 1356F. were wrong and consequently the plaintiff claimed possession as well as damages. The defendants contested the suit on the ground that they were recorded occupants in 1356F. and had become adhivasis and thereafter sirdars. 2. The issue about the defendants' adhivasi rights was referred to the revenue court. The revenue court came to the conclusion that the defendants were adhivasis. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for possession but decreed it for damages. The parties went in appeal against that judgment and the lower appellate court has maintained the trial court's decree dismissing the suit for possession while that court enhanced the damages to Rs. 300. It is how the plaintiff has come in appeal. 3. Sri Bhawani Prasad, learned advocate for the appellant, has contended that the courts below have erred in holding that the defendants were adhivasis because the entries have not been made in accordance with Secs. 28 and 33 of the Land Revenue Act and in any case the defendants being recorded as occupants over one plot in Rabi crop and over the other in Kharif crop could not become adhivasis-sirdars. His contention is that under Sec. 20(b) it is necessary that a person should be recorded as an occupant in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356F. and since the entries relate to only a part of the year the defendants are not recorded occupants. Sri B. C. Saxena, learned advocate for the respondents, has contended that Sec. 20(b) does not speak of the whole year and it only speaks of a person being a recorded occupant; it may be for the whole year or a part thereof, and so he would become an adhivasi. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no pronouncement so far on the question involved in this case, that is if a person is recorded as an occupant in a part of the year 1356F, can he or can he not acquire adhivasi rights. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no pronouncement so far on the question involved in this case, that is if a person is recorded as an occupant in a part of the year 1356F, can he or can he not acquire adhivasi rights. In this case both the plots are entered as khudkasht of the appellant put in the remarks column it is entered against plots No. 303 "qabiz fasal Rabi Mangali Kurmi batai aath ana" while the entry against plot No. 304 is "qabiz fasal Kharif Manaali Kurmi batai aath ana." This entry shows that on plot No. 303 the defendants were not recorded in Kharif while over plot No. 304 they were not recorded in Rabi. 5. Sec. 20(b) so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case reads: "Every person who was recorded as occupant of any land in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356F, prepared under Secs. 28 and 33 respectively of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall be called adhivasi of the land." The question is whether an entry which relates to only one fasal in respect of each plot can be deemed to be an entry recording the defendants-respondents as occupants in 1356F. Obviously the answer has to be in the negative because an entry under Secs. 28 and 33 of the Land Revenue Act has to be made in respect of the whole year and not part of the year and when the section speaks of 1356F, it speaks of the whole year and not part of the year. Agricultural year has been defined in the U.P. Tenancy Act meaning the year commencing on the 1st day of July and ending on the 30th of June. For purposes of Sec. 20(b) a person must be recorded as an occupant in the Khasra or Khatauni of the year 1356F, and not part of the year. In this case the defendants-respondents are recorded as occupants in Rabi over one plot and in Kharif over the other and so they cannot be deemed to be recorded occupants in respect of any of the two plots in the Khasra of 1356F., obviously because the whole is not included in part and the intention of the Legislature could not have been to confer adhivasi rights on persons who were recorded only for part of the year. It will be more so because two persons could not become adhivasis over the same plot if the name of one was recorded in Rabi crop and the name of the other was recorded in Kharif crop over the same plot. If that be taken that entry on any of the two crops was sufficient then there would be two claimants to become adhivasis by virtue of being recorded occupants, one in one crop and the other in the other. Adhivasi rights could only go to the person whose name is recorded throughout the year and not in a part of the year. The defendants-respondents, therefore, could not become adhivasis and the court below has definitely gone wrong in holding the same. This appeal, therefore, must succeed. 6. The appeal is allowed with costs throughout. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside. The plaintiff's suit for possession is decreed. The decree for dam ages of Rs. 300 passed by the towel appellate court is maintained.