JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is an application for review of this court's order dated 8.3.1976 passed in Second Appeal No. 137 of 1973-74/district Pratapgarh. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant 3. The review application has been filed beyond time. An application for condonation of delay has been made on the ground that Shiva Dutt alias Chhotey Lal, one of the respondents in the above appeal, has been suffering from T.B. and has been under going treatment and hence could not file this application in time. It may be noted that there were two respondents, Brama Dutt and Chhotey Lal, both being brother, and even if Chhotey lal was not well, his brother Brahma Dutt could have taken the necessary steps. There care no sufficient grounds for condoning the delay. Quite apart from this the review petition has no substance on merits. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the plaintiff (Brahma Dutt and Chhotey Lal) had perfected their rights and title as sirdars in respect of the plots in suit by virtue of their continuous possession. However, if adverse possession had been claimed against the recorded tenure-holder, it was mandatory to impleaded the recorded co-tenure-holder as a defendant in a suit under section 229-B U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The learned counsel's contention is that as recorded co-tenure-holder Jagat was not more in existence on record, the plaintiff was not legally liable to impleaded him as a party. This contention is against the record. The extract of the khatauni for the years 1375 to 1377 Fasli filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint show that Jagat is recorded as the sirdar of the land in suit since before 1360 Fasli. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant ahas also contended that there is no question whether Jagat is alive or dead and that the case of applicant was that Jagat was lapata and that of the other party was that he was alive. The provisions relating to persons alleged to be lapata are given in Secs 107 and 108 of the Indian evidence act which are reproduced below: 107. Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within thirty years. The provisions relating to persons alleged to be lapata are given in Secs 107 and 108 of the Indian evidence act which are reproduced below: 107. Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within thirty years. When the question is, whether a man is alive or dead, and it is shown that he he was alive within thirty years,the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it. 108. Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years. Provided that when the question is, whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have hared to him if he had been alive the burden of providing that he is alive is in shifted to the person who affirms it." The learned counsel has contained that section 107 is not applicable in the present case. This contention, however, is without substance. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that Jagjit who is alleged to be lapata is living in Burma and has been visiting his ancestral village off and on. Even the plaintiff Chhotey Lal has admitted in his statement on oath that Jagat used to live in Burma and had visited the village twenty or twenty-five years back. Now, it is the plaintiff's who are claiming that Jagat is legally dead. The burden of proving the death of Jagat thus lies on the plaintiffs which they have failed to discharge. The defendant Ram Dular had not claimed any rights in the land on the ground that Jagat was alive or dead. He had merely challenged the allegation of the plaintiffs that Jagat was lapata. Thus, it would be twisting law to say that the burden to prove the whereabouts of Jagat has shifted on the defendant. 5. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that this court has committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record in dismissing the plaintiff's suit. I find that the only conclusion which clearly emerged' from the record is that the plaintiffs are trying to misappropriate somebody else's land in an unlawful manner. The only error of law committed by this court is in not supporting his plaintiff attempt to subvert the law. 6. I find that the only conclusion which clearly emerged' from the record is that the plaintiffs are trying to misappropriate somebody else's land in an unlawful manner. The only error of law committed by this court is in not supporting his plaintiff attempt to subvert the law. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has sought a clarification whether this court has upheld the claim of the defendant, Ram Dular while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. It should be quite clear from the last paragraph of the court's order dated 8.3.1976 that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant no. 1 has been held to be sirdar of the land. Any party claiming sirdari rights in the land in suit by adverse possession must impleaded Jagat as a defendant before any decree can be passed in favour of that party. Since the plaintiffs had filed this suit for declaration of sirdari rights. Without impleading Jagat, their suit was dismissed. However, the legal position of the defendant No. 1 was the same as that of the plaintiffs. 7. With the above observations the review petition is hereby rejected.