JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment of Additional Commissioner dated November 7, 1981. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties but defendants 4 to 7 are not represented and no one is present on their behalf and perused the record. 3. This was a suit filed by Mst. Jhalari (widow of Hari Ram) against Ram Prasad (brother of Hari Ram), State Government and Gaon Sabha claiming 1/2 share and is later on defendants 4 to 7 Chhanno and others were impleaded parties. 4. Written statement was filed on December 16, 1971 by Ram Prasad claiming 2/3rd share and another written statement was filed by Chhannoo and others on February 4, 1972 with the allegation that they became Sirdars of plot Nos. 796, 797, 800, 801 and 797/2204, 3074 and 3089. 5. At one stage the suit was decided and again remanded and item decided. Hence the judgment in question is dated November 25, 1977 by which the S.D.O. decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Although in deciding issues No. 3 and 4 he gave a finding that defendants 4, 5 and 6 became Sirdar of 7 plots mentioned above. 6. No appeal was filed by the plaintiff but defendant Ram Prasad filed an appeal against this judgment. That appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on November 7, 1981, while deciding this appeal in the body of the judgment the Additional Commissioner has also discussed about the rights of defendants 4 to 7 Chhannoo, Bhola etc. and has decided that if not on the basis of entires, on the basis of admission by Ram Pd. defendant-appellant and due to no denial of possession from the side of plaintiff, the defendants 4 to 7 have acquired Sirdari rights. 7. Both the courts have decided that plaintiff and defendant No. 1 Ram Prasad had 1/2 share each in the property in dispute. Against this issue Ram Prasad appellant had not argued any point and this issue has been decided in favour of plaintiff i.e. claim of Ram Prasad having 2/3rd share have been denied by both the courts below and 1/2 share each has been declared. Thus the plaintiff Jhalari and defendant Ram Prasad have 1/2 share each over the land in dispute except 7 plots as mentioned above. 8. Hence this issue regarding the share of Jhalari and Ram Prasad is finally settled. Thus the plaintiff Jhalari and defendant Ram Prasad have 1/2 share each over the land in dispute except 7 plots as mentioned above. 8. Hence this issue regarding the share of Jhalari and Ram Prasad is finally settled. 9. Now the issue regarding the declaration of Sirdari right over 7 plots has been challenged by Ram Prasad appellant and Jhalari. But from the finding of both the courts below it is clear that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have got a clear case in respect of all the plots mentioned above and they have got 1/2 share over that land. There is some doubt about the exclusive right and interest of the plaintiff and defendant Ram Prasad over plot Nos. 796, 797, 800, 801, 797/2204, 3074 and 3089, hence the suit cannot be decreed in respect of these plots. The parties who want to get their right or interest declared may get it declared under proper provision of law in the court authorised to do it. But this cannot be done in a suit simplicitor under Section 176 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Hence for this purpose so far as these plots are concerned the suit of partition is not maintainable. 10. In a suit under Section 176 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act there is a division of holding between the parties and the shares of the parties are decided. The declaration of the rights of any other person (not a tenure-holder of the land in dispute), cannot be made in such suit. If declaration is made it is beyond the jurisdiction of the court to declare the right of third person in partition suit. Hence a declaration of Sirdari rights over certain plots of 3rd persons (defendants 4 to 7 who got themselves impleaded later on) is without jurisdiction. 11. So far as the second appeal in respect of shares of plaintiff and defendant Ram Prasad is concerned it is dismissed and the share declared by the courts below is accepted; but so far as the declaration of the Chhannoo Bhola etc. 11. So far as the second appeal in respect of shares of plaintiff and defendant Ram Prasad is concerned it is dismissed and the share declared by the courts below is accepted; but so far as the declaration of the Chhannoo Bhola etc. 4 to 7 concerned the second appeal is allowed and that finding is set aside and I hold that in respect of plots No. 796, 797, 800, 801, 797/2204, 3074 and 3089 the suit is not maintainable under Section 176 the parties may get their rights declared under the proper provision of law; the appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. Under such circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.