JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a second appeal under Section 229-B of the Act, I of 1951 against the judgment and decree of learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division dated February 4, 1975 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree of the court decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration by its judgment and decree dated August 1, 1972. 2. The plaintiff respondent had filed a suit for declaration to be Bhumidhar in possession of plot No. 566/1 area 1 bigha 2 biswas shown with letters A, B, C and D in the map prepared by Vakil Commissioner Sri Jagdish Chandra Saxena that it was sold to him by father of defendants 1 and 2 and their uncle and defendant No. 3 by sale deed dated October 25, 1945 out of plot No. 566 area 2 bighas 5 biswas and 19 biswansis towards north with 14 trees, i.e. 12 mango trees on Mahuwa tree and one bamboo clump since then he was in possession, that defendants 1 to 3 dishonestly denied the right and title of the plaintiff. 3. The suit was contested by defendant who admitted the execution of sale deed and the possession of the plaintiff on 1 bigha 2 biswas towards north, that the plaintiff had demolished southern. Mend and has encroached on the land that they cultivate their area 2 bighas 3 biswas and 19 dhurs as plot No. 566/2, that the suit is not identifiable that the suit is about southern portion of plot No. 566/2, that the plaintiff had cut away one mahuwa tree and 3 mango trees and the plaintiff want to take away their trees shown in the map of the Commissioner as Nos. 3, 1, 15 and 16. 4. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the courts below have acted illegally in dividing plot No. 568 by demarcation which is not permissible in a suit under Section 229-B for which a suit is to be brought under Section 176 of Act I of 1951 as held in Khalil Ahmad v. Aqil Ahmad 1974 UPRC 539 and reliance has also been placed on the order in Second Appeal No. 615(z) of 1967-68/Pratapgarh Mohd. Amin v. Bhagwatidin under Section 229-B/209 of Act I of 1951 decided on June 27, 1969 by Mr. Amin v. Bhagwatidin under Section 229-B/209 of Act I of 1951 decided on June 27, 1969 by Mr. A.S Sirohi, IAS, Judicial Member. 6. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that a suit for declaration about a holding or part thereof under Section 229-B of Act I is permissible even for a specified portion and a suit for demarcation is not a condition precedent which are only summary proceedings which are meant only to facilitate the work of the revenue courts. They are not condition precedent for declaratory suits. Reliance has been placed on Smt. Ganga Devi v. Board of Revenue, U.P. 1974 RD 62 . 7. The ruling reported in copy of decision of second appeal No. 615 of 1967-68 is not applicable to the present case because in it change of plot numbers in the settlement map and the records were involved and in it, it was correctly held that under Section 28 of U.P. Land Revenue Act a duty was cast on the Collector to maintain the village map in a correct condition which duty was to be performed by him or any responsible officer appointed by him. The report of the Vakil Commissioner could not constitute a sufficient ground for change of the members in the settlement map and the reference. In the present plot No. 566 with its area 3 bighas 5 biswas and 19 dhurs was found to be existing on the spot per report of the Vakil Commissioner dated October 22, 1971 and out of it the Vakil Commissioner fixed plot No. 56/1 area 1 bigha 2 biswas on the plot as A, B, C and D shown in his map. 8. The observation of Hon'ble Member Mr. M.S. Haq in the ruling reported in Khalil Ahmad v. Aqil Ahmad (supra) in paragraph 9 is that there is no bar in a suit under Section 229-B for giving declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to a particular share or specific plots out of entire plots. Now under provisions of Section 229-B a declaration can be sought in respect of holding as a whole or any part thereof which part may be notional or specific. Now under provisions of Section 229-B a declaration can be sought in respect of holding as a whole or any part thereof which part may be notional or specific. In this case declaration has been given regarding plot No. 561/1 area 1 bigha 2 biswas which has been specified by A, B, C and D in the map of the Vakil Commissioner dated October 22, 1971 which has been ordered to be part of decree by the lower court. By doing so actual declaration of a notional share or a division of a plot has not been ordered but only a declaration has been given about a holding i.e. plot No. 266/1 or a specified part i.e. by mentioning it to be A, B, C and D in the map of the Vakil Commissioner. Therefore, those observations are not applicable in the present case. Even in that case the appeal was dismissed as only a specified plot was held to be of the share of the plaintiff. The said observations "It is only actual demarcation of a share or a division of a plot which cannot be ordered in a suit under Section 229-B and for which a suit to be brought under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. I of 1951" whether made as a matter of fact which were not at all involved in that case they do not prohibit declaration about a part which is specific. The observation of Hon'ble RL Gulati, J. in 1974 RD 62 although made in a suit under Section 209 of Act I of 1951 are applicable to the cases like present case. In the present case the defendants or their ancestors had sowed 1 bigha 2 biswas in the northern portion of plot No. 566. The declaration about it as plot No. 566/1 which has been specified A, B, C and D in the map of the Commissioner is not prohibited in a declaratory suit under Section 229-B rather it is incumbent on a revenue court to do so in such suits. Specially when the entire area of plot No. 566 exist on the spot per report of the Vakil Commissioner dated October 22, 1971 and plot No. 566/1, 1 bigha 2 biswas which was admittedly sold to the plaintiff is recorded in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. 9. Specially when the entire area of plot No. 566 exist on the spot per report of the Vakil Commissioner dated October 22, 1971 and plot No. 566/1, 1 bigha 2 biswas which was admittedly sold to the plaintiff is recorded in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. 9. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant in view of the amendment order in this court in the pleadings in memo that the measurements made by the Vakil Commissioner cannot be accepted as they are not based on first and second settlement map which were not supplied to him per his Additional report dated December 8, 1971. I do now agree with this argument is the special circumstances of this case. The Vakil Commissioner in his report dated October 22, 1971 paper No. 52-A was less than the area recorded i.e. 2 bighas 5 biswas 19 dhurs was found with actual person on the spot, therefore, no dispute about this identity on the spot can be imagined to exist. The report of the Vakil Commissioner, therefore was rightly accepted and relied upon by the courts below because when actual recorded area exist on the spot and actual areas of both plot No. 566/1 and 566/2 recorded in the revenue papers are available on the spot no mistake in specifying them on the spot was actually committed by the Vakil Commissioner. The phrase used by the lower appellate court without the 'demarcation' was correctly done by the Vakil Commissioner may not be proper but what actually was done that plot No. 566/1 was specified on the spot as whole area of plot No. 566 existed on the spot. Therefore, there was no need in this case of the maps of the first and second settlement and the findings of the courts below based on the Vakil Commissioner's report cannot be said to be erroneous an being concurrent findings of court below cannot be challenged and set aside is second appeal in special circumstances mentioned above. Even the defendant admitted that the plaintiff was in possession on plot no. 566/1 on an area of 1 bigha 2 biswas which was specified by the Vakil Commissioner in his survey. It appears that defendant appellants have got a misapprehension that some area of their southern portion i.e., of plot no. 566/2 was being encroached by the plaintiff. Even the defendant admitted that the plaintiff was in possession on plot no. 566/1 on an area of 1 bigha 2 biswas which was specified by the Vakil Commissioner in his survey. It appears that defendant appellants have got a misapprehension that some area of their southern portion i.e., of plot no. 566/2 was being encroached by the plaintiff. Both the parties had claimed exaggerated portion. The Vakil Commissioner had shown their claims is the map. He rightly specified plot No. 566/1 by which exaggerated claim of both the parties were not found justified. 10. In view of the share in my considered opinion this appeal has got no force which is hereby dismissed with costs.