JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, Member - This is a second appeal against the judgement and decree dated June 30, 1971 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in appeal No. 98 of 1969-70/Aligarh. 2. The facts are briefly that the plaintiff, Tanvir Ahmad Khan, filed a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act against his brothers, Ghayas Ahmad and Aizaz Ahmad, claiming ? share in the land in dispute. The case was contested by the defendants who claimed that their father had executed a will on June 8, 1969, prescribing that on his death, only the two defendants would share the land. 3. The learned trial court recorded evidence in respect of the will dated June 8, 1969 on the basis of discrepancies in the evidence in respect of its execution held that the will was not a genuine document. It also relied upon a compromise dated February 4, 1970 between Tanvir Ahmad Khan and Ghayas Ahmad Khan in a mutation case in which these two persons had stated that all the three sons should be recorded as heirs. The evidence of the genuineness of the will was also rejected. Each of the brothers was awarded ? share. 4. A first appeal against this judgement was filed before the leaned Additional Commissioner by Aizaz Ahmad and was allowed. The court held that the will was genuine as it had been proved by the contesting witnesses as well as the evidence of the mother of the parties but since the compromise in the mutation case was not binding upon Aizaz Ahmad who was not a signatory thereto, it had no value is legal terms. 1/12 share in the land was awarded to each of the two defendants. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has cited a ruling reported in 1969 R.D. 125, in which the Board of Revenue has held that in a case under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act where one of the parties has specifically claimed that a recorded co-tenant has no share whatsoever in the land in dispute, the court would have jurisdiction to arrive at a decision against the fact of co-tenancy without making it incumbent on any of the parties to file a declaratory suit in order to set aside the co-tenancy. 6. 6. Another ruling of the Board of Revenue reported in 1970 R.D. 383 has been cited in support of the contention that a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is maintainable by any unrecorded co-tenant. 7. With all respect, I find myself unable to agree with the views taken by the Board of Revenue in these two cases, If a person is recorded as a co-tenant in revenue papers, it cannot be held in a suit for partition that he is not a co-tenant. Such a finding can be given only in a declaratory suit. This view is fortified by the technical position that the mandatory parties prescribed by law is a declaratory suit are not the same as those prescribed for a partition suit. 8. In the present instance, therefore, the fact that Tanvir Ahmad Khan is recorded in revenue papers as a co-tenant of the land in dispute must be deemed to entitle him to a share in the hand in dispute. 9. A further ruling cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad reported in 1979 R.J. 1981 in support of the contention that the consent or an admission made in mutation proceedings has no relevance in regular title proceedings. This ruling has no relevance in the present instance which is concerned with partition and not title. The question agitated by the learned counsel would have been relevant only in a declaratory suit. 10. A perusal of the judgement of the learned trial court shows that minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses in respect of the will had witnesses in respect of the will had given undue importance. The evidence of the mother of all the parties directly concerned should have been given due weight as has been done by the Additional Commissioner. Her statement shows that the she was not prejudiced against any of the three brothers. The will must, therefore, be regarded as genuine and, in fact, the compromise dated February 4, 1970 between Tanvir Ahmad Khan and Ghayas Ahmad Khan specifically mentions the facts that there had been a will dated June 8, 1969 though it also expressed the desire that the provisions of the document should be ignored. 11. The will is, therefore, held to be genuine. 12. 11. The will is, therefore, held to be genuine. 12. The learned Additional Commissioner has, however, erred in holding that because the will was genuine, it must, therefore, follow that the subsequent compromise between Ghayas Ahmad and Tanvir Ahmad Khan must be ignored as it constituted revocation of the will. There was no question of revocation involved in the present case. The compromise between the two brothers was followed by an order of the Tahsildar in a mutation case that all the three brothers should be recorded as co-tenants. This order has not been set asides so far by a superior court and no declaratory suit has been filed for its annulment. One significant fact about it is that Aizaz Ahmad was not a party to it and, therefore, he cannot be held to be bound by the compromise. If Ghayas Ahmad was willing to admit Tanvir Ahmad Khan as a co-tenant, he could do so only in respect of his own share in the land. 13. The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellant from 1977 R.D. 276 is not relevant to the facts of the instant case. 14. The shares of the parties are decided accordingly:- (i) Aizaz Ahmad .. 1/2 Share (ii) Ghayas Ahmad .. 1/4 Share (iii) Tanvir Ahmad .. 1/4 Share 15. The preliminary decree shall be prepared accordingly. 16. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, No. order is made as to costs.