JUDGMENT H.N. Srivastava, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 20-12-1983 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division Varanasi reversing the judgment and decree dated 16-7-80 passed by the A.C., 1st Class, Jaunpur in a suit u/s 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff-appellant, Krishna Bihari claimed the share of Mst. Genua, one of their common ancestor who died issue-less exclusively against other recorded co-tenants in suit u/s 176 of Z. A. & L. R. Act. The trial court admitted the claim of the appellant, Krishna Bihari, while the lower appellate court held that the share of Smt. Genua should go in equals proportions to all the branches represented by the recorded co-tenants. The decision of the lower appellate court has been challenged by the counsel for the appellant Sri Hari Shanker, on the ground that law prevailing in point of time in respect of the entries in the record have not been appreciated by the learned lower appellate court and the entries in favour of the appellant, Krishna Bihari, and his ancestors from whom he has inherited the share of Smt. Genua have been wrongly held to be unreliable. Pedigree has been given in the annexure to the plaint which is admitted to both the parties. Common ancestor of the parties was one Nepal who had four sons. Smt. Genua was the widow of the 4th son by name Badal. It is admitted again by the parties that Smt. Genua died between 1308-09 fasli issueless. The learned counsel tor the appellant pointed out that the period corresponds to the year 1901 A.D. when the N.W.P. Tenancy Act was applicable. In accordance with section 22-(e) of N.W.P. Tenancy Act of 1901 the interest of the deceased in the holding would have devolved to the nearest collateral male relative in the male line of descent. In the proviso to the above section it is added that no such collateral relative shall be entitled to inherit who did not share in the cultivation of the holding at the time of tenants death. In the proviso to the above section it is added that no such collateral relative shall be entitled to inherit who did not share in the cultivation of the holding at the time of tenants death. It was pointed put by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in accordance with law quoted above the name of Mathura son of Ram Deen was recorded on th share of the deceased Smt. Genua even though he was not nearest collateral relative he was sharing cultivation of the holding of the deceased at the time of her death and, therefore, his name was mutated rightly on the disputed share in preference to his own father Ram Deen who was alive then. It is further argued that Mathura died issueless, thereby the share of Mathura in the Khata devolved on Dwarika his real brother and after Dwarika it devolved on Krishna Bihari son of Dwarika and as such it has been claimed that apart from his own share in khata ; Krishna Bihari is entitled to th share of Smt. Genua in the disputed khata. 3. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if the above explanation of the entry of the name of Mathura on the share of Smt. Genua is not accepted, the fact that the name of Mathura continued on the records for considerable period may be taken into account and co-tenancy on him can be taken as established on the principle of estoppel. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties argued that the case of the appellant as put up before the trial court was quite different. It has been argued that the appellant. Krishna Bihari, claimed exclusive share of the deceased Smt. Genua through his grand father, Ram Deen, who it was contended was the nearest collateral male relative alive in the male line of descent at the time of the death of Smt. Genua. It has been further argued that the claim of the plaintiff appellant, Krishna Bihari, has been rightly rejected by the lower appellate court on the ground that at the time of death of Smt. Genua other collateral's of the same generation as Ram Deen were alive and accordingly the learned lower court has rightly distributed the share of Smt. Genua among branches of those persons equally. It has also been argued that in the khatauni of 1309 fasli, the name of Mathura s/o Ram Deen occurs along with that of Ram Deen his father and, therefore, that entry has been taken rightly as incorrect by the lower appellate court. 5. The decision in the case thus hinges around the entry of Mathura in the Khatauni of 1309 fasli. Can it be taken as a correct entry ? In ray opinion there is no reasonable ground to discard this entry as altogether wrong. The law of succession applicable at the time of the death of Smt. Genua has already been quoted above. Admittedly Mathura was not the nearest collateral male relative in the male line of descent alive when Smt. Genua died yet his name was entered in the 1309 fasli over th share of the deceased Smt. Genua. Further his name was entered even though the name of his father was already entered in the khatauni. This proves the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that the name of Mathura was entered in preference to his father on the share of Smt. Genua because he was the nearest collateral male relative in the male line of descent who shared in the cultivation with the deceased Smt. Genua. For this interpretation of section 22 (e) of N. W. E. P. Act of 1901 the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the ruling quoted in R. D. 1919 at page 313. It has been held, to quote from the judgment referred to above. On the main question, I have always accepted the interpretation of section 22 (e) which was adopted by my predecessors in Messers. Baillie, Power and Tweedy, that the words The Nearest Male Relative' meant the nearest male relative who shared in the cultivation. This entry continued intact for a considerable period and later on also after the death of Mathura who died issueless, the name of his brother Dwarika was entered in the year 1334 fasli on the share of Mathura, apart from his own share, on which his name was continuing from before in the same khata. This entry further suggests that the position as indicated in the khatauni of 1309 fasli continued intact subsequently also. Krishna Bihari being the son of Dwarika inherited the share which has been acquired by Dwarika both. This entry further suggests that the position as indicated in the khatauni of 1309 fasli continued intact subsequently also. Krishna Bihari being the son of Dwarika inherited the share which has been acquired by Dwarika both. In his own capacity as a member of the joint family and also as the exclusive successor of the share of Smt. Genua. I, therefore, hold that the learned trial court has been correct in assigning ? share to the appellant in the said khata. 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that share of the appellant, can only be determined in accordance with pleadings set forth by him in his plaint. It has been further argued that sines the plaintiff-appellant has not claimed the share of deceased Smt. Genua through Mathura the argument put forth now in this regard can not be accepted. I do not agree with, the above argument of the learned counsel for the respondents. Determination of the shares of the parties u/s 176 of Z.A. & L.R. Act is an issue which has to be decided its an objective manner on the basis of evidence available and on the analysis of the legal position. It is not dependent entirely on the pleadings of the parties. 7. For the above reason I allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner and restore the order of the trial court.