JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This second appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 against judgment and decree dated September 30, 1978 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, dismissing plaintiff's suit holding Atar Singh and defendants 1 and 2 to be co-tenants of the disputed plots dismissing plaintiff's appeal confirming judgment and decree dated October 29, 1975 passed by S.D.O. Shikohabad, district Mainpuri, dismissing plaintiff's suit holding defendants 1 and 2 only co-tenants of the disputed land. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration to be sole Sirdar in possession of the disputed land being daughter to Yasoda and Sukhlal alleging that defendants 1 and 2 defendants No. 3 have got no concern with the disputed land. 3. Defendant 1 and 2 filed written statement alleging that plaintiff is not daughter of Yasoda and Sukhlal and has been set up by defendant No. 3 who also has got no concern with the disputed land. 4. The suit was contested by defendant No. 3 who denied the alleged claim of plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and claimed to be sole tenant of the disputed land. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It has been argued that defendant No. 3 had not filed first appeal, therefore, his rights were wrongly determined as co-tenant by the lower appellate court against the case of parties: that defendant No. 3 had lost his case in mutation case and was not recorded in final Khatauni or in C.H. Forms 45, therefore, the part of the judgment of the lower appellate court holding him co-tenure with defendants-appellants is liable to be set aside. 7. It has been argued in reply that the plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the trial court, therefore, defendant No. 1 was not entitled to file appeal against it but was entitled to support the decree of dismissal of the plaintiff's suit and to challenge the findings of the trial court against him under order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code and the lower appellate court rightly held defendant No. 1 to be co-tenure with defendants 1 and 2 of the disputed land being recorded up to C.H. Form 23 which is final. Reliance has been placed on 1978 R.D. 104, 1975 R.D. 291, 1970 R.D. 413 and 1970 R.D. 282. 8. Reliance has been placed on 1978 R.D. 104, 1975 R.D. 291, 1970 R.D. 413 and 1970 R.D. 282. 8. Order XLI rule 22(1) of the civil Procedure code runs as follows: "Upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred separate appeal. - (1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour......" It is, therefore, clear that respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour, therefore, although defendant No. 3 had not preferred first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's suit when the first appeal was filed by the plaintiff defendant No. 2 was entitled to support the decree of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff and was also entitled to challenge the finding of the trial court against him not holding him co-tenant of the disputed land with defendants 1 and 2 which was done and the lower appellate court considered it and determined it in his favour which was not at all illegal in any way in view of the provision of Order XLI rule 22(1) of the Civil Procedure Code quoted above. 9. Defendant No. 3 was recorded co-tenant of disputed plot with its old plot No. 574 with Yashoda Devi widow of Sukhlal per copy of C.H. Form No. 25 part I and copy of C.H. Form No. 23 and copy of Khatauni of 1375 to 1377 Fasli, therefore, if the name of defendant No. 2 Atar Singh was omitted while preparing C.H. Form 45 it is only a clerical error because C.H. Form 45 is not final and is only copy of C.H. Form 32 which is final, therefore the trial court had wrongly held only defendant No. 2 to be co-tenant of the disputed land who had inherited Yashoda Devi being sister's son of her husband Sukhlal. 10. 10. The lower appellate court rightly held defendants 1 and 2 and defendant No. 3 to be co-tenants of the disputed land as defendant No. 3 was recorded co-tenant of the disputed land with Yashoda Devi up to C.H. Forms 22 and 23. Defendant No. 1 lost mutation case after the death of Yashoda Devi but it does not wipe away his right adjudicated upon by consolidated courts between him and Yashoda Devi who, therefore, had equal shares in the disputed land and the share of Yashoda Devi was inherited by her husband's sister's sons. 11. Plaintiff suit was rightly dismissed by both the courts below after appraisal of all oral and documentary evidence on record. Copy of Kutumb register and school certificate were disbelieved by the courts below because in the original Kutumb register overwriting was found and in the school register about 10 pages were found to be missing and the plaintiff was disbelieved as she could not tell about the family of her father or about the family of her maternal grandfather and her P.Ws were also disbelieved for cogent reasons and D.Ws. examined by Atar Singh and by defendants 1 and 2 were believed that plaintiff was not daughter of Yashoda Devi and Sukhlal, therefore, that finding of fact is not liable to be interfered with in second appeal. Hence this appeal has got no force. It is liable to be dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are liable to be confirmed. 12. In view of the above this appeal is hereby dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are hereby confirmed. Defendants 1 and 2 and defendants No. 3 now substituted by his sons are declared to be co-tenants of the disputed land who shall be so recorded over it and the papers shall be corrected accordingly.