JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the order and ejectment dated February 13, 1975 passed by Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division dismissing appeal and confirming the Judgment and decree of the lower court dated October 9, 1972. 2. The facts briefly are that plaintiff Aditya Prasad Singh brought this suit for parties alleging that the land in suit was Khudkasht of Himmat Singh and after his death it devolved on him and his brother Bhagwati Singh, sons of Himmat Singh became Bhumidhars and that their share was half and half, that defendant No. 1 is vendee of Bhagwati Singh, therefore, they have got half share each. 3. Defendant No. 1 admitted that it was Khudkasht of Himmat Singh but pleaded that on account of family custom the eldest son used to get 1 share and the youngest only one share since Bhagwati Prasad Singh was eldest, his share was ?th and the share of the plaintiff is only 2 / 5 th. 4. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It has been found by courts below as a fact that there was a custom in the family of the Thakurs to which cast plaintiff and vendor of defendant No. 1 belonged that the eldest son used to get a Jethansi, i.e. his share was one and half (1) and the share of the youngest son was only one. This finding cannot be challenged in the second appeal. The appraisal of documentary and oral evidence by the courts below regarding it does not show any perversity. 6. It is admitted case of the parties that the land in suit was Khudkasht and that Himmat Singh had died before Act I of 1951 came into force which is also borne out from the paper entries. In the Khewat of 1356 to 1359 Fasli also the share of Aditya and Bhagwati were mentioned to be one and 1 which further proves the custom in the caste and the share of the parties. 7. In the Khewat of 1356 to 1359 Fasli also the share of Aditya and Bhagwati were mentioned to be one and 1 which further proves the custom in the caste and the share of the parties. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that on abolition of zamindari and after the notification under Section 4 of Act I of 1951, consequence which issued are enumerated in Section 6 of that Act, under which all the land of intermediaries vested in the State and certain lands were resettled under Section 10 of that Act with the intermediaries etc. and the land in suit was settled with the sons of Himmat Singh under Section 19(1)(a) of the Act being Khudkasht, therefore the custom even if it existed will have no bearing on the share of Aditya and Bhagwati after vesting. 8. In my considered opinion this argument has got no force because admittedly Himmat Singh had died before the date of vesting, therefore, his sons had inherited the land in suit before the date of vesting, the share according to the custom prevailing in their family and caste, and after the date of vesting and resettlement with them their share which was inherited by them remained intact and in no way was varied by the consequences of vesting and resettlement with them under the Act. 9. In view of the above there is no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs and the judgments and decrees of the courts below are hereby conformed.