JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the order dated 29-8-69 passed by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division reversing the order dated 30-12-67. passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, Sultanpur in a case under section 229-B U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Rama Shanker, Uma Shanker, Hari Shanker, Girja Shankar, Dan Bahadur and Srimati Bannaji had field a suit for declaration of their co-bhumidhari right in certain plots to the extent of ?rd share. The trial courts by its order dated 30-12-67 decreed the suit. The lower appellant court, however, held that the suit was barred under section 34(5) Land Revenue Act and dismissed it. Rama Shanker, Girja Shanker and Dan Bahadur have now come upon second appeal before this court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the lower appellant court has erred in law in reversing the appeal on an erroneous view of the law and that no mutation application under Section 34, Land Revenue act was necessary as the entries were made in the revenue records in a representative capacity. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the plaintiff had claimed that both the parties had branched from a common ancestor Audan Misra, that there was a joint Hindu Family and that names of certain members of this family were recorded in a representative capacity. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to Ram Chandra Singh v. Uddai Narain Singh 1970 R.D 383, in which a learned Member of this court has as follows: "Section 34 of the U.P. Land revenue Act refers to the cases of persons obtaining possession in any land by succession or by transfer. Obviously, the question of succession will arise only when the name of the person through whom one claims to be and heir is entered in the village records. It will be observed that the plaintiffs came to he court for division of holding with the contention that the name of the common ancestor was recorded in a representative capacity, and as such they were entitled to a share in the land in dispute, even though their names did not find place in the village records. It will be observed that the plaintiffs came to he court for division of holding with the contention that the name of the common ancestor was recorded in a representative capacity, and as such they were entitled to a share in the land in dispute, even though their names did not find place in the village records. In all such cases the name of the immediate predecessor of a claimant of a share would be found wanting. Held : The trial court was justified in holding that the bar of Section 34(5) of the U.P. Land Revenue Act was not applicable in the facts of the present case." I would entirely agree with the view taken above by my learned brother. The bar of Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act is not applicable where the name of the common ancestor is recorded in a representative capacity. The learned Additional commissioner erred in law in holding to the contrary and reversing the order of the trial court on this ground alone. 6. The order of the trial court is well-based on the evidence on record and is in accordance with the principles of law. The learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to challenge it on any ground. After going through the evidence and the judgment, I fully concur with the findings of the Assistant Collector. 7. Accordingly I hereby allow this appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellant court, and restore the order of the trial court.