JUDGMENT M.P. Pandey, M. - This second appeal arises out of a partition suit Swamidin is the plaintiff and Gop Nath and other are defendants. The trial court passed a preliminary decree declaring the share of the various parties. No appeal was filed against it and, therefore, it became final. The next step was preparation of the lots. The lekhpal filed the lots on July 10, 1968. An objection was filed by Gopi Nath defendant saying- (1) That he was in possession of the western portion of plot No. 46 and he had constructed a well therein and had installed a Persian wheel as well and neither any valuation was made nor it was allotted to his share. (2) That plot No. 2 and eastern portion of plot No. 46 were given to him, but they were in possession of the plaintiff. 2. The trial court accepted the objection regarding valuation and fixed the valuation of the well and trees and passed an order that parties will take possession of their lots and they will get compensation in respect of valuation. This order is dated September 20, 1971. 3. An appeal against the above order was filed by Gopi Nath defendant. Learned Addl. Commissioner was of the view that the learned trial court, while preparing the lots, should have taken into consideration the fact of possession of the parties. In other words, he was of the view that as far as possible only that land should be allotted to a person over which he was in possession. He, therefore, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the case for preparing the lots in the above manner. Hence, this appeal. 4. It has been urged on behalf of plaintiff-appellant that in a partition case there is always a question of accommodation as it is very difficult to get the desired areas. It has been said that parties have to adjust themselves with the new lots in a spirit of give and take. There is, no doubt, plenty of force in this argument, but there is over-whelming force in the argument that as far as possible the land in possession of a person should be allotted to him. As a matter of fact Rule 131(c) of U.P.Z.A. Rules lays down this dictum. Obviously this principle has not been followed in the preparation of the lots. As a matter of fact Rule 131(c) of U.P.Z.A. Rules lays down this dictum. Obviously this principle has not been followed in the preparation of the lots. In my opinion, the order of remand passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner is correct. The fact of possession must be take into consideration, as far as possible in preparing the lots. 5. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with costs.