JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated May 18, 1974 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division in 1st appeal arising out of a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and LR Act. 2. The plaintiff claimed that he was co-tenant along with defendant and if the defendant is found to be in possession he may be ejected. Obviously this plea is contradictory to the claim of co-tenancy and the learned counsel for the respondent agreed to this and with-drew his plea under Sec. 209. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that plaintiff brought the suit in respect of 7 plots under Sec. 229-B claiming that the land in dispute was the property of their common ancestor Amrit that Smt. Dhanpatia defendant No. 3 had remarried after the death of her husband and as such her rights extinghished, and that the plaintiffs were the co-tenants along with defendant No. 1 and were in possession as such. Defendant No. 2, Smt. Dhanpatis, admitted that she has no right or claim over the disputed land. Defendant No. 1 claiming the entire property in question as his sole tenancy and in possession. The defendant denied that the property came from the time of Amrit and claimed that there was litigation between the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 himself wherein he was declared sole tenure holder of plot No. 109/2, and that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have no right or title over the land. The trial court dismissed the suit. The Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal in part are set aside the order of the trial court in respect of 4 plots. The second appeal has been filed in respect of only three plots. 3-a. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court held that the trial court held that the holding as it stood today was not the acquisition of Amrit and accordingly dismissed the suit. The learned Additional Commissioner held that so far plot No. 55/3 is concerned it was recorded in 1345 F. in the name of Amrit and therefore it was the acquisition of Amrit the common ancestor of the parties. Regarding other plots i.e. Nos. The learned Additional Commissioner held that so far plot No. 55/3 is concerned it was recorded in 1345 F. in the name of Amrit and therefore it was the acquisition of Amrit the common ancestor of the parties. Regarding other plots i.e. Nos. 109/2 and 109/5 the learned Additional Commissioner held that they were never recorded in the name of Amrit except in 1356 F. but as the period recorded in 1356 F. was 14 years, it must be held to have been acquired at the time of Amrit. In respect of plot No. 109/2 the learned Additional Commissioner also held that there had been a previous litigation between the present defendant and plaintiffs 1 and 2 and, therefore, it will operate as res judicata against the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and accordingly held that plaintiffs 3 and 4 are co-tenants along with defendant No. 1. He submitted that it has to be seen whether the period mentioned therein is correct or not. In 1355 F. on plot No. 109/2 and 109/5 the entry is in red ink with a period of one year in favour of Vishwanath. In 1352 F. an other Khata No. 13/1 is recorded in the name of Amrit and contains plots No. 55/3 and 109/7. In khata No. 16/1 on Rameshawar is recorded with a period of 5 years in plot No. 109/2. He therefore, argued that unless it was proved that the land originally belonged to Amrit no joint tenancy can be established and the finding of the lower appellate court in respect of these two plots is erroneous and without any basis, it is recorded in the name of Amrit in 1345 F. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that defendant No. 1 being the eldest brother's son of Amrit his name was recorded in a representative capacity, and, therefore, the rights of other brothers cannot be taken away. In respect of the two plots i.e. 109/2 and 109/5 he stated that these plots are also recorded in the name of defendant No. 1 and being of an identical nature, the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly held that they were the acquisition of Amrit the common ancestor and this being a finding of fact cannot be looked into, in second appeal. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that it is true that in 1356 F. the period mentioned in respect of the three plots is 14 years, held in the name of Vishwanath. Thus the entry of 14 years recorded in 1356 F. in respect of these two plots is incorrect. In 1345 F. the plot no. 109/2 is recorded in the name of Raghunath. 6. I have considered the arguments and gone through the record of the case. The Additional Commissioner had allowed the appeal in part and set aside the orders of the trial court in respect of 4 plots. Out of these 4 plots the appellant has appealed only in respect of 3 plots. The learned counsel for the appellant conceded that plot No. 55/3 may be treated as the acquisition of Amrit the common ancestor of the parties. Hence the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner in respect of this plot are not in dispute. As regards plot No. 109/2 it is clear that there was previous litigation between the present defendants and plaintiffs 1 and 2 and, therefore, that judgment will operate as res judicatea. It will operate as res judicata not only with respect to plaintiffs 1 and 2 but also against other plaintiffs whose cases are identical to that of plaintiffs 1 and 2. Therefore, even if the entries of 109/2 do not clearly establish that it comes from that common ancestor the defendants will be deemed to have exclusive interest over this plot. As regards plot No. 109/5, and this also applies to plot no. 109/2, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted copies of Khatauni of 1356F which are at variance with the copy of Khatauni for 1356F submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. The copy that has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant is from the record maintained in the Record Room whereas the copy submitted by the respondent is from the Lekhpal. Between the two I would definitely hold that the copy obtained from the Record Room is made reliable. Hence I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that this plot cannot be treated to be the acquisition of Amrit the common ancestor and should go to the plaintiff-appellant. Between the two I would definitely hold that the copy obtained from the Record Room is made reliable. Hence I agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that this plot cannot be treated to be the acquisition of Amrit the common ancestor and should go to the plaintiff-appellant. The revenue entries in respect of this plot do not support the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner particularly as the entry recorded in 1356F, showing the possession of 14 years duration is not supported by any other entry of the previous revenue records. As the entry in respect of this plot in 1355F is in red ink with a period of one year is duration in favour of Vishwanath it cannot be held to be the co-tenancy of the defendants. Hence I partly allow the second appeal and hold that plot No. 109/5 shall go the plaintiff-appellant and the orders of the Addl. Commissioner in respect of this plot are set aside and in respect of other two plots are upheld. The second appeal is decided accordingly.