JUDGMENT H. N. Seth, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal. Plaintiff Jaidev filed a suit for a declaration that certain plots were wrongly entered in the name of the father of defendants Nos. I and 2, and that he had a right to get his name entered in respect of these plots. Plaintiff, in the alternative, claimed that in case it was found that he was not exclusively entitled to get his name entered over these plots, he would be entitled to get his name entered jointly over these plots and some other plots along with defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Plaintiff's case was that certain Nap land (hereinafter referred as Hissedari land) mentioned in the plaint formerly belonged jointly to him and the predecessor in interest of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. There was a private partition between him and the predecessor in interest of the defendants. The plaintiff got the land to the north of the line A B shows in the map attached to the plaint whereas defendants got the land to its south. Thereafter the parties extended their cultivation to some unmeasured land and it was alleged that the plaintiff extended his cultivation to plot No. 9382 to 9393 and plots Nos. 9435 to 9440 adjacent to his plots. Defendants also extended their cultivation to other unmeasured plots Nos. 9431 to 9434 adjoining their Hissedari plots. In the revenue record the name of the father of the defendants was, wrongly entered in respect of the plots i.e. plots Nos. 9382 to 9393 and 9435 to 9440 to which the plaintiff had extended his cultivation under the provisions of the Kumaon Nayabad and Waste Land Act, 1948. When he came to know about the wrong entries in the records in the year 1958 he made an application to the A. R. 0. for mutation of his name but his application was rejected. It was under these circumstances that he prayed for a declaration that he was the owner of the plots to which he extended his cultivation. If for some reason it was found that he was not en- titled to have his name exclusively entered in respect of those plots his name should be jointly entered along with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 over all the plots to which the parties had extended these cultivation i.e. over plots Nos. If for some reason it was found that he was not en- titled to have his name exclusively entered in respect of those plots his name should be jointly entered along with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 over all the plots to which the parties had extended these cultivation i.e. over plots Nos. 9382 to 9393 and 9431 to 9440. Defendants Nos. 3 to 9 who became owners of the land in Khata No. 46 had no interest in the plots in dispute and had been implead- ed merely as proforma defendants. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that no partition took place between the parties in the manner alleged by the plaintiff. Defendants claim that plots Nos. 9382 to 9393 and 9431 to 9440 were correctly' entered in the name of their father and that it was he who extended the cultivation to these plots at his own cost. They claimed to be in possession of those plots since the time of their father and that the plaintiff never extended his cultivation to these plots. According to the defendants, the entire land extended by the plaintiff had been entered in his name and the land extended by their father was entered in the name of the latter and the entries were correctly made in the revenue records. 3. After considering the evidence produced in the case the trial court came to the conclusion that the entire Hissedari land was joint and so the extension made by any co-sharer would also belong to other co-sharers jointly. According to it, if one co-sharer is in possession of a piece of land that would be deemed to be the possession on behalf of all the co-sharers. In view of the finding that the parties jointly owned the entire Hissedari land the trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree to the extent that the parties were the joint owners of the plots to which the cultivation had been extended by any of the co-sharer. 4. The defendants went up in appeal and it was contended that the trial court erred in holding that even though one co-sharer may have extended cultivation to the, plots in dispute, it Would still belong to all the co-sharers. According to the defendants the land would belong to the person who extends cultivation to it. 5. 4. The defendants went up in appeal and it was contended that the trial court erred in holding that even though one co-sharer may have extended cultivation to the, plots in dispute, it Would still belong to all the co-sharers. According to the defendants the land would belong to the person who extends cultivation to it. 5. After considering the evidence produced by the parties the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove that he ex- tended his cultivation to the land in dispute. In view of the admission made by the plaintiff in the application Ex. A-2 it was clear that cultivation in the disputed land was extended by the father of the defendant. It also held that there was no complete partition of all the Hissedari plots between the parties, and that the Hisscdari plots belonging to the parties were divided for the sake of convenience. Both the parties therefore continued to be the legal owners of all the Hissedari plots. It however came to the conclusion that the evidence produced on behalf of the plaintiff did not show that he either exclusively or jointly extended cultivation to the plots in dispute. In the absence of such an extension, the plaintiff could not be held to be either the exclusive or the joint owners of the plots in dispute. According to the lower appellate court the trial court was not justified in spelling out a new case for the plaintiff by holding that these plots were extended jointly by both the parties. In the result it allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Peeling aggrieved the plaintiff has come up in appeal before this Court. 6. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in a case where one of the co-sharer extends his cultivation under Section 5 of the Kumaon Nayabad and Waste Land Act 1948, over the adjoining unmeasured land, the other co-sharers acquire any right in the land to which the cultivation is extended. The view taken by the lower appellate court appears to be that if the co-sharer extends the cultivation individually the land will belong to him and if he extends it jointly with others it will belong jointly to the par- ties so extending the cultivation. The view taken by the lower appellate court appears to be that if the co-sharer extends the cultivation individually the land will belong to him and if he extends it jointly with others it will belong jointly to the par- ties so extending the cultivation. Since in this case there was no material on the record to show that the cultivation was extended to the plots in dispute jointly, the plaintiff's case of joint ownership could not be accepted. As it had been found that the defendant's father had extended the cultivation to these plots, the defendants alone were entitled to be entered as owners. 7. In my opinion the view taken by the lower appellate court is not in accordance with Section 5 of the Kumaon Nayabad and Waste land Act. Section 5 of the Act reads as follows :- Subject to the rules made under Section 25 every person cultivating land in Kumaon has a right to extend his cultivation over the adjoining unmeasured land and the person so extending his cultivation shall possess the same right over such extension as he has in his original cultivation." On the findings arrived at by the lower appellate court, it is clear that the defendants, who have been found to have extended the cultivation to the plots in dispute were merely co-owners of the Hissedari plots adjoining which the cultivation had been extended. In the circumstances the defendant could acquire only such rights over the plots to which cultivation had been extended as they had over the Hissedari plots. The defendants were only co-owner along with the plaintiff of the Hissedari plots, and therefore they acquired the same rights over the plots in dispute, In other words they became co-owner of the plots in dispute along with the plaintiff. In the circumstances the decree passed by the trial court was quite justified and the lower appellate court was wrong in interfering with it. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court and restore that passed by the trial court. In the circumstances. I direct the parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.