ORDER K.M. Dayal, J. - Heard Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Ganga Singh learned counsel for the respondents appeared and stated that he has no instructions. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) passed in proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The consolidation operations started in the village relating to grove Khata No. 301 situated in village . Marauli, Pargana Akbarpur, district Kanpur. In the basic year the names of petitioners, respondents 6 to 10, one Ramesh and his coparcener's were entered. Respondents 3 to 5 were not entered in the Khata. They filed objections claiming that they were co-tenure holders of the land. The consolidation officer gave the objectors share as under : Smt. Bilasa Kunwar 1/20, Roshan Singh 1/40, Sahao Singh 1/40. The petitioners were given 1/10th share each. Other sharers were given share which are not relevant at this stage. An appeal was filed by Daulat Singh and others u/s 11(1), Consolidation of Holdings Act, before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) varied the shares and held that Bilasa Kunwar had 2/15, Roshan Singh and Sahao Singh had 1/15 each and petitioners had 1/30 each and the shares of others were increased. The petitioners filed a revision u/s 48, Consolidation of Holdings Act, before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The revision has been dismissed by him. 3. The following pedigree is relevant to the present case : 4. Admittedly the disputed property is a grove. In the year 1982 fasli all the five branches of Alam were recorded. The next document available on record is khasra of 1311 fasli. In 1311 fasli Daryao Singh and Chandan Singh representing the branch of Bhawan Singh were recorded. Uttam Singh representing the branch of Khuman Singh was recorded and Mahipat and Arjun Singh were recorded in the branch of Inder Singh and Bahadur Singh. Thus in 1311 fasli only three branches were recorded. The branches of Bakhat Singh and Girand Singh had extinguished. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the disputed land was a grove land. It was governed by personal law. Consequently in the year 1311 fasli all the three branches that were recorded had ?rd share each. Thus in 1311 fasli only three branches were recorded. The branches of Bakhat Singh and Girand Singh had extinguished. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the disputed land was a grove land. It was governed by personal law. Consequently in the year 1311 fasli all the three branches that were recorded had ?rd share each. Amongst Bakhat Singh and Girand Singh who died earlier and who died later is wholly irrelevant. There appears to be force in the contention of the learned counsel. There was no proper partition or sale of the shares of any sharer till 1311 fasli. Consequently the parties succeeded by way of survivor ship on the death of other coparceners. The shares would be as per capita. Consequently the share of the branch of Bhawan Singh represented by Daryao Singh and Chandan Singh would be ?rd. Similarly Uttam Singh had ?rd share that belonged to the branch of Khuman Singh and Arjun Singh and Mahipat representing the branch of Bahadur Singh had ?rd share the belonged to Bahadur Singh. In Para 221 of Principles of Hindu Law by D. F. Mulla the incidents of joint family or coparcenary property are given. Such property devolved by survivor ship and not by succession. The share of the parties in such property is not fixed. It increases by the death of coparceners and decreases by the birth of male members in the family. In para 321 of the aforesaid Hindu Law it has been given that on a partition the various brothers take equal shares but their branches take per stirpes. Under the circumstances in 1311 fasli three branches which were recorded, had equal shares in the disputed property. Daryao Singh and Chandan Singh had ?rd, Uttam Singh had ?rd and Arjun Singh and Mahipat had the remaining ?rd share. 6. Both the courts below have held that Arjun Singh and Mahipat transferred ?th share in favour of Misri Lal. Out of ?rd if ?th is taken out, they retain 2/15th'hare only. Their share devolved on Dalip Singh. Dalip Singh purchased the share from Ganesh and Pahalwan. In this manner Dalip Singh became entitled to 2/15th plus the share purchased by him from Ganesh and Pahalwan. It has to be seen whether Ganesh and Pahalwan transferred their entire share or only a portion. If only a portion is transferred they retain the remaining portion. Dalip Singh purchased the share from Ganesh and Pahalwan. In this manner Dalip Singh became entitled to 2/15th plus the share purchased by him from Ganesh and Pahalwan. It has to be seen whether Ganesh and Pahalwan transferred their entire share or only a portion. If only a portion is transferred they retain the remaining portion. The courts below have proceeded on the basis that every branch had ?th share and on the death of two coparceners Bakhat Singh and Girand Singh their share would not go to all the remaining survivors but to such brother who outlived them. It may be mentioned that up to July 1952, i. e. prior to the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, groves were governed by personal law and not by tenancy laws. Thereafter when they became Bhumidhar u/s 18 they could be governed by S. 171, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In the instant case the devolution has taken place prior to 1st July 1952 and consequently the shares passed on by survivorship and not by succession. The shares determined by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and Deputy Director of Consolidation have thus to be set aside and the case to be decided afresh according to law taking the shares of the three surviving branches as ?rd each prior to the date of vesting. 7. In the result the petition is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is set aside and the case is sent down to him to decide the shares of the parties in accordance with the law and as mentioned above. 8. As no one appeared to oppose the petition, no order as to costs.