JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the order and decree of Sri A. Rahman, Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi division, dated September 16, 1966 in appeal no. 191/176 of 1966 in original suit no. 361 of 1964 u/s. 229-B/176 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the Id. counsels for the parties and have gone through the records. 3. The plaintiff-respondent Maqsood Ali had filed a suit u/s. 229-B/176 Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming that he was a co-tenure-holder of the land in suit with one-half share and seeking partition of his share. According to him the land was ancestral and that he himself was son of Phalua one of the co-tenure-holders, whereas Rahmat Ali and Inayat Ali, defendant-appellants were s/o Rajua, the other co-tenure-holder. The defendant-appellant contested the case saying that Phalua was indeed a co-tenure-holder of the land, but he had no son. Phalua had kept a woman who developed a love affair with one Inti. Inti subsequently enticed this woman. Moqsood Ali was not the S/o Phalua but was the S/o Inti who had married this woman Maqsood Ali along with his mother lied with Inti and succeeded to his property after his death. The trail court dismissed the suit holding the defendant. Appellant to be the sole Sirdars of the land. The lower appellate court has however, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent holding him to be the co-tenant of the land to the extent of ?rd share. 4. The entire case revolves round the question whether Maqsood Ali is the S/o Phalua or of Inti. The trial court has held that Maqsood Ali was not the S/o Phalua. The Id. Addl. Commissioner has however, reversed this finding. It has therefore, to be seen whether the Id. Addl Commissioner was Justified in doing so. Certified extract of the Adult Register of Gaon Sabha Chhanchara Lalpur had been filed which records Maqsood as S/o inti. His age is recorded as 28 years. Mazsood Ali himself has appeared as his own witness and has stated that the land in suit had been acquired by one Shaukat who had four sons Baboo, Rajoo, Phaloo and Kalloo of which Baboo and Kalloo died without any issued. Inayat and Rahmat were the s/o Rajoo. After the death of Phuloo, whose son he claimed to be as mother remarried Inti. Inayat and Rahmat were the s/o Rajoo. After the death of Phuloo, whose son he claimed to be as mother remarried Inti. He admits that he along with his mother lives in the house of Inti in village Chhauchra. According to him his father Phulloo died when he was 3 or 4 years ago (his age on the date of deposition is recorded as 35 to 36 years) he also says that he came village Chhauchra with his mother 20 or 25 years back. He says that he does not know that his mother remarried in village Chhauchra. Smt. Mandaiya alias Maiya mother of Maqsood Ali has also appeared as his witness. She admits he remarriage with Inti, but contradicts Maqsood Ali on the point whether he live with her or not. She says that Maqsood Ali does not lives with her. She further says that her second marriage had taken place in village Chhauchra. She admits that Inti brought Maqsood Ali up. The witnesses of the defendant-appellant Ram Kumar and Bare Singh have clearly stated that Phalloo never married, but not as early kept a woman. According to Rahmat Ali this woman was enticed away by Inti and Maqsood Ali was born out of the wed lock between Inti and this woman. 5. The Id. Add. Commissioner has assumed that the plaintiff-respondent is the S/o Phalua only because according to him in the marriage register there is an entry of the marriage of Smt. Mehdia with Nazir Shah alias Phalua in the year 1341 Hijri and also an entry of marriage of Smt. Mehdia with Inti in the year 1348 Hijri. The Id. counsel for the appellant has attacked these entries on the ground that the marriage of Smt. Mehdia with Nazir Shar alias Phulua. The Nikah Register which has been filed in this court is itself of 1345 Hijri, but it bears an entry of 1348 H. which according to the learned counsel makes the Register itself doubtful and the entry regarding marriage of Smt. Mehdia with Nazir Shah alias Phalua according to him is interpolated. According to the 100 year's Calender 1901 to 2000 the year 1341 Hijri approximates to 1922 A.D. and the year 1348 Hijri approximate Maqsood Ali itself it would appear that his age on February 26, 1965 (date of his deposition) was 35 to 36 years. According to the 100 year's Calender 1901 to 2000 the year 1341 Hijri approximates to 1922 A.D. and the year 1348 Hijri approximate Maqsood Ali itself it would appear that his age on February 26, 1965 (date of his deposition) was 35 to 36 years. In other words he was born in the year 1929 or 1930. Thus the entries of the Nikah Register even if held to be correct would show that Maqsood Ali was born after the marriage of Smt. Mehdia with Inti, and not out of her alleged marriage with Phalua. Smt. Mehdia has her self stated in her deposition that her remarriage took place 5 or 7 years after the death of Phallo if according to the Nikah Register, her remarriage took place in 1348 Hijri it means that Phalloo had died either in 1343 Hijri or in 1341 Hijri (1924 A.D. or 1922 A.D.). Thus the statements of the plaintiff-respondent and his mother clearly establish that the plaintiff-respondent was born a few years after the death of Phalloo alias Phalua alias Nazir Shah and could not be his son. Whether Phalu marriage Smt. Mehdia or merely kept her as his paramour without marriage is immaterial here. This court is not concerned with the private morals of the individuals, but in so far as the question whether the plaintiff-respondent was the son of Phalua and can succeed to his property in concerned, the finding of the trial court is fully established that the plaintiff-respondent has filed that the plaintiff-respondent has failed to prove is parentage from Phalua. On the other hand there is clear-cut and unrebutted evidence showing that the plaintiff-respondent has been recorded as a son of Inti in the Adult Register of the Gaon Panchayat, that the plaintiff-respondent as well as his mother Smt. Mehdia lived with Inti in the latter's house and that he has succeeded to the property of Inti This goes to show conclusively that the plaintiff-respondent is really the son of Inti the Addl. Commr's findings to the contrary are thus quite perverse and based on mis-reading of evidence. 6. The Id. Commr's findings to the contrary are thus quite perverse and based on mis-reading of evidence. 6. The Id. counsel for the appellant has referred to D.A. Anand v. S.L. Master 1965 A.L.J. p. 317, wherein it has been held that a finding of fact based on wrong approach of proof or a presumption not permitted by law or based on irrelevant evidence can be vitiated and set aside in second appeal. In view of this ruling the finding of the Id. Addl. Commissioner are vitiated and liable to be set aside. 7. Apart from the question of parentage the plaintiff-respondent has also failed to show his possession over the land in dispute in an manner. The oral and documentary evidence clearly establishes the possession of the defendants-appellants. The trial court has rightly held that the defendants-appellants are recorded in possession over the plots in suit since long and have irrigated the plots and have paid the rent. They are thus the sole Sirdar of the plots in suit to the exclusion of the plaintiff. Surprisingly the Id. Addl Commissioner has not even touched the question of possession and has not discussed the effect of the entries in revenue records or of rent receipts or of Parcha Abpashi. In a declaratory suit these are to great significance. Thus there serious omission in the judgment of the Id. Addl. Commissioner which is liable to be set aside on this score also. 8. Thus I hold that the order of the Id. Addl. Commissioner is bad in law and his findings are perverse and based on misreading and exclusion of evidence. I hereby allow the appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate court and restore the order of the trial court.