JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - In the present writ petition the dispute relates to land of Khata No. 10 situated in village Sujawalpur, pargana Birhar, tehsil Tanda, district Faizabad, which was recorded in the basic year Khatauni in the name of Jaddu son of Nihal, the opposite party No. 3. This Khata No. 10 contains plot Nos. 292, 289/3 and 289/4. An abjection was filed by petitioners Sanehi and Jawahar under Section 9A(2) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, the Act) claiming cotenancy rights in the aforesaid holding, on the ground that it is ancestral land and they have got 1/3rd share each and that the remaining I/3rd share belongs to opposite party No. 3, Jaddu. The case was contested by opposite party No. 3, with the allegation that the land in dispute is not ancestral and that the petitioners have got no right, title or interest in it nor they are in possession over the same. It appears that during partal possession of petitioner Jawahar was noted on plot Nos. 289/3 and 289/4, area 7 biswas and 10 biswansis. An objection was filed by Jaddu against Jawahar in respect of said plots, for the expunction of the entry regarding possession in his name and for a declaration that he is sole Bhumidhar of the land in dispute. In Para 1 of this objection, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the rejoinder, affidavit, it was averred by Jaddu that the aforesaid disputed plots are ancestral, coming down from the time of their father and grand father (Pushtdarpusht) and that he is in possession as Bhumidhar over the said plots. The Consolidation Officer, after taking evidence of the parties, allowed the objection of the petitioner vide order dated 28111975 holding them to be cotenure holders along with opposite party No, 3 in the disputed holding having l/3rd share each and the remaining l/3rd share belonged to opposite party No. 3. Aggrieved by that order opposite party No, 3 preferred appeal which was heard and allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 2331976 holding opposite party No. 3 to be sole tenure holder of the disputed holding. Against this order, the petitioners preferred revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 831978 confirming the finding recorded by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation. Against this order, the petitioners preferred revision which was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 831978 confirming the finding recorded by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The petitioners have challenged these orders in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land of the holding :n dispute, Khata No. 10, is ancestral, and as such, the petitioners had l/3rd share each. He pointed out that the pedigree which is mentioned in Para 4 of the writ petition has not been disputed. It is mentioned below : Gajadhar Nihal Hari Lal Jawahar Jaddu Sanehi (Petitioner No. 1) (Oppo. No. 3) (Petitioner No. 2) 3. Daring pendency of the writ petition, Jawahar died and his heirs were brought on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation and pointed out that in Khatauni 1337F the name of common ancestor Gajadhar was recorded on plot Nos. 292, 293 and 289 with a duration of eight years, and in 1359 F the plots in dispute, namely, plot Nos. 292 and 289 were recorded in the name of Jaddu son of Nihal. It was, thus, contended by him that these plots belonged to the common ancestor Gajadhar, and, as such, the petitioners have got l/3rd share each in these plots. His further contention was that in a case of claim of cotenancy rights, question of possession was not very material because possession of one tenant would be deemed in law to be possession of another tenant. Learned counsel, thus, contended that opposite parties No. 1 and 2 legally erred in not giving 1/3rd share to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 contended that the land in dispute was separately acquired by opposite party No. 3 Juddu and his name was also recorded in 1359 Fasli and the entry in his name continued even after abolition of Zamindari. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioners had no concern with the land in dispute and they had never been in possession over the same nor they had paid land revenue and. as such, they cannot be declared to be cotenure holders in the disputed holding. 5. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioners had no concern with the land in dispute and they had never been in possession over the same nor they had paid land revenue and. as such, they cannot be declared to be cotenure holders in the disputed holding. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully perused the impugned orders by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and also the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter and rejoinder affidavits. 6. The foremost crucial question for consideration in the writ petition is as to whether the land of the disputed holding is ancestral and is coming down in the identical form or not. In order to claim cotenancy rights by an unrecorded tenant it has to be proved that the land in dispute is either ancestral holding or it was acquired in the representative capacity by the recorded tenure holder or that it was acquired with the aid and assistance of the joint family funds or that it was their joint acquisition and unfortunately their names were not recorded. 7. In order to establish whether the land in dispute is ancestral holding coming down from the time of the common ancestor, it is very necessary to establish that the land has come down in the identical form and with unbroken period, and as such, mere recording of the name of common ancestot earlier on some of the plots of the holding would not be enough for holding that the land of the disputed holding is ancestral property. It may, however, be clarified that the increase or decrease in the area of certain plots of the holding as a result of resurvey made during the settlements or elimination of one or two plots from the holding recorded in the name of common ancestor for certain good reasons shown would not affect or alter the identity of the holding which has otherwise retained its character having come down in the identical form without any break in the continuity of tenancy from the time of common ancestor. If the identity of the holding has changed and it has not come down in identical form, it can then very well be assumed to have been settled with the recorded tenure holder and it cannot be treated to be ancestral holding so as to give a share to the unrecorded claimant claiming a share in it merely on that ground. 8. In the present case, in 1337 Fasli the name of common ancestor Gajadhar was recorded on Khata No. 53 consisting of two plots, namely, plot Nos. 292 and 293 with a duration of eight years. The recorded annual rent was Rs. 2/ of this holding. On another Khata No. 23 in 1337 Fasli, the name of Gajadhar was recorded with a duration of eight years on an annual rent of Rs. 4/. In this holding only one plot was recorded, namely, plot No. 289. This plot No. 289 has now got two subdivisions, namely, 289/3 and 289/4. In 1359 Fasli plot No. 289 is recorded in the name of Jaddu with a duration oc24 years on an annual rent of Rs. 3.50. This entry with regard to duration indicates that this land was acquired sometimes in the year 1337 Fasli. It is, therefore, evident that the entry with regard to duration is per se wrong because this plot No. 289 was recorded in 1337 Fasli in the name of Gajadhar, grand father of Jaddu. In 1359 Fasli, the name of opposite party No. 3 was recorded on plot No. 292, but plot No. 293 was not recorded in his name. Subsequently in Khataun 1360 Fasli and also in Khatauni 1363 to 1368 Fasli the name of Jaddu was recorded on plot Nos. 292 and 289 as sole Bhumidhar. It is, therefore, evident that plot No. 293 is not included in the holding of opposite party No. 3, which earlier belonged to the common ancestor Gajadhar. Thus, the holding of Gajadhar, so far as these two plots are concerned, namely, Plot Nos. 292 and 293, which were recorded in his name in 1337 Fasli with a duration of eight years did not come down in identical form. Only one plot of this holding, namely, plot No. 292 was recorded in the name of Jaddu in 1359 Fasli. It is, thus, evident that the holding of Gajadhar consisting of these plots, namely, plot Nos. Only one plot of this holding, namely, plot No. 292 was recorded in the name of Jaddu in 1359 Fasli. It is, thus, evident that the holding of Gajadhar consisting of these plots, namely, plot Nos. 292 and 293 has not come down in the identical form. The petitioners, therefore, cannot get cotenancy rights so far as plot No. 292 is concerned. It appears to have been acquired by opposite party No. 3 himself and for that reason it was recorded in his name on separate Khatauni in 1359 Fasli. 9. But so far as plot No. 289 is concerned I find that it has come down in identical form in the holding recorded in the name of opposite party No. 3 in 1359 Fasli. 'As already mentioned above, this plot No. 289 was recorded in 1337 Fasli in the name of Gajadhar in Khata No. 23. Later on it was recorded in the name of opposite party No. 3 in the Khatauni of 1359 Fasli with a duration of 24 years. This duration, as had already been mentioned above, is per se wrong as it cannot be accepted that the opposite party No. 3 had acquired this plot in the life time of Gajadhar, whose name was recorded in 1337 Fasli with a duration of eight years in Khata No. 23. This plot has, therefore, come down in the identical form and it cannot be said to have lost its identity merely on the ground that the rent of this holding consisting of plot No. 289 was reduced from Rs. 4/ to Rs. 3.50 recorded in 1359 Fasli., Merely by reduction of rent, which may have occurred due to remission, in rent in prevesting period from time to time, it cannot be held that the land was resettled with Jaddu. 10. In this view of the matter I find that the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation have erred in not giving cotenancy rights to petitioners so far as plot No. 289/3 and 289/4 are concerned and the impugned orders passed by opposite parties No. 1 and 2 cannot be sustained. 11. Before parting with the case I may also deal with another argument urged by the learned counsel for the opposite party. His contention was that the present disputed holding consists of three plots, namely plot Nos. 292, 289/3 and 289/4. 11. Before parting with the case I may also deal with another argument urged by the learned counsel for the opposite party. His contention was that the present disputed holding consists of three plots, namely plot Nos. 292, 289/3 and 289/4. He, thus, urged that the petitioners cannot be granted cotenancy rights in the part of the holding. No doubt it is correct to say that cotenancy rights cannot be given in part of the holding but this argument would not prevail in the present case for reasons indicated hereunder. 12. After the abolition of Zamindari, various holdings recorded in prevesting period in the name of tenureholders were consolidated and recorded in one khata. Plot No. 292 was recorded in one Khata while plot No. 289 was recorded in another khata in the name of opposite party No. 3 in 1359 Fasli. Thus, these plots were recorded in two different holdings in the name of opposite party No. 3 in 1359 Fasli. The said plot No. 289 had two subdivisions, namely, plot No. 289/3 and 289/4. After the abolition of Zamindari the said two separate holdings were consolidated and recorded in the name of opposite party No. 3 as was required under the provisions of Land Record Manual. Thus, merely because the two holdings, which were recorded in the name of opposite party No. 3 in prevesting period, were consolidated and recorded in one Khata after abolition of Zamindari, the previously recorded holdings cannot lose their identity and have got to be dealt with separately on merits. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the acceptance of the claim of the petitioners in respect of plot No. 289/3 and 289/4 would amount to recognizing claim of cotenancy rights in respect of a part of the holding. As already observed above, plot No. 289 form part of separate holding from the time of commonancestor Gajadhar and continued to retain its identity throughout and, as such, the petitioners should have been held to be cotenure holders in the said plot No. 289. As already observed above, plot No. 289 form part of separate holding from the time of commonancestor Gajadhar and continued to retain its identity throughout and, as such, the petitioners should have been held to be cotenure holders in the said plot No. 289. There is also admission of opposite party No. 3 contained in his objection filed in respect of plot No. 289/3 and 289/4 wherein he has mentioned the said plots to be ancestral, and, as such, petitioners' claim with regard to cotenancy rights in these plots deserved to be accepted and the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 legally erred in rejecting their claim in respect of said plots. 13. In the result, the writ petition partly succeeds and is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 831978 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 2331976 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, are quashed insofar as plot No. 289/3 and 289/4 are concerned in which the petitioners would be given l/3rd share each and the remaining l/3rd share would belong to opposite party No. 3 Jaddui So far as plot No. 292 is concerned, there appears to be no error in the impugned orders with regard to this plot and, as such, the writ petition fails so far as plot No. 292 is concerned. 14. Thus, the name of petitioner No. 1 Sanehi and petitioner Nos. 2/1 and 2/2 Smt. Dhanpati and Smt. Fakan, the two daughters of Smt. Lakhraji widow of Jawahar would be recorded as cotenure holder along with opposite party No. 3 Jaddu on plot Nos. 289/3 and 289/4. The share of petitioner No. 1 would be l/3rd and of petitioner Nos. 2/1 and 2/2 would be l/3rd and the remaining l/3rd share would belong to opposite party No. 3. 15. No order as to costs. (Petition partly allowed.)