JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri Ashwini Kumar, Commissioner, Allahabad Division recommending that the revision filed by Ram Newaj against the order dated December 15, 1972 passed by the J.O (Rev.) in a suit under Secs. 176/229-B, UPZA and LR Act may be rejected with costs and counsel's fee of Rs. 30/- as the revision petition is frivolous. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the records. Counsel for the revisionist has not appeared to argue the case inspite of due notice. 3. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 Rak Lakhanm Rajit, Rajendra and Vijai Bahadur had filed a suit under Sections 229-B/176, ZA and LR Act against the revisionist Ram Newaj and others. During the pendency of the suit one of the defendants Ram Swarup died and the plaintiffs filed an application for substituting his sons Rajit. Girja Prasad and Jagat Bahadur, Ram Newaj on the other hand made an application that along with the sons the daughters of the deceased my also be impleaded. The trial court has rejected this objection holding that in view of the High Court's decision in Allauddin Khan v. Hamid Khan 1971 RD 160 daughters are not necessary parties with sons and need not be impleaded. This order has been challenged in the revision. 4. The ground taken in the revision is that under the Hindu Law, daughters are also entitled to inherit the property of the father along with the sons of the deceased make tenant and that the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law in passing the impugned order. 5. It is indeed correct that under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 sons and daughters both will succeed a male Hindu dying intestate, but Section 4(2) of the same Act also provides that this Act shall not affect the provisions of any law for the devolution of the tenancy rights. These rights will therefore, be governed by Section 171 of the UPZA and LR Act, under which a son would be a preferential heir to a daughter. Thus the impugned order of the trial court is perfectly sound. 6. Other ground raised in the revision relates to finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer on issue No. 4. These rights will therefore, be governed by Section 171 of the UPZA and LR Act, under which a son would be a preferential heir to a daughter. Thus the impugned order of the trial court is perfectly sound. 6. Other ground raised in the revision relates to finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer on issue No. 4. However, as the revision specifically relates to the trial court's order dated December 13, 1972 in which there is no mention of the S.D.O's finding, this ground is quite irrelevant. 7. The revision is frivolous and has no force. Agreeing with the recommendations of the learned Commissioner, I hereby dismiss the revision along with Rs. 30/- as costs.