JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member. - This is a defendant's second appeal against the judgment of Additional Commissioner dated February 15, 1972 by which he dismissed the appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsels and perused the records. 3. The facts of the case are that Ram Ratan and Ram Parsan were the two surviving sons of Gauhari. The others died heirless. The suit was filed on March 24, 1961 by Ram Ratan (after his death his sons Raghubansh and others) against Ram Persan (after death now his sons Shiv Mangal and Kedar). The plaintiff claimed 1/2 share of the land in suit which included 16 plots in area 16.26 acres. 4. Written statement was filed by Ram Saran on September 1, 1961 in a way admitting the claim of the plaintiff as 1/2 share in the ancestral property but the defendant inter alia alleged that the whole property was about 20.47 acres and out of this some portion was let out or transferred by the plaintiff, hence that may be deducted from his share. Therefore, the defendant's share in the land in suit will be larger than the plaintiff's share and the defendant is in possession over his over share. 5. The case of the plaintiff was accepted by both the courts below and they have decreed the suit declaring 1/2 share over the land in dispute as narrated in the plaint and 1/2 share of the defendant. Both the courts have held that the lease granted by the plaintiff in respect of about 4.21 acres land of 10 plots was for the whole family and it cannot be deducted from his share. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the provisions of Hindu Law are not applicable in Tenancy Law and the jointness of the property or Hindu Joint Family property or the notion of Karta does not apply in tenancy law. He has based his argument on the point that, even if for the argument sake it is admitted that Hindu Law is applicable, the Karta of the family had no right to alienate the property except for legal necessity as enunciated in various provisions of law. He has based his argument on the point that, even if for the argument sake it is admitted that Hindu Law is applicable, the Karta of the family had no right to alienate the property except for legal necessity as enunciated in various provisions of law. In the present case there was no such legal necessity and the plaintiff was not the Karta hence in any capacity he had no right to let out or alienate the share of the defendant who was minor at that time. 7. There is no dispute about the point that Karta of the family or the father has got no right to alienate the joint family property except for legal necessity etc. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on ruling of 1951 A.I.R. Nag. 249 on the point that the lease granted by father is not binding on the sons. In this case the lessee wanted to take possession and the sons contested the same and it was held that father had no right to lease out the agricultural land under circumstances of the case. He also relied on the other ruling of Lahore High Court A.I.R. 1940 P. 473 (sic) which it was held that one co-sharer can transfer the portion of a joint family property which was in his exclusive possession subject to adjustment to the right of other co-sharers at the time of partition. 8. In the case of Nagpur High Court the sons contested the granting of lease as they were not bound by it, hence at the very initial stage the lease was challenged and the lease (which is a transfer of rights to such property) was not permitted by the sons and in the Lahore case the Karta or co-sharer who had transferred a right was in exclusive possession over the property but here the facts of the case are otherwise as held by both the courts below. 9. The transferor made arrangements of joint tenancy and that was acted upon and he was not in exclusive possession over that area of the land. By the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the person in possession acquired some rights hence a portion of joint property has come in the hand of another man. 9. The transferor made arrangements of joint tenancy and that was acted upon and he was not in exclusive possession over that area of the land. By the enforcement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the person in possession acquired some rights hence a portion of joint property has come in the hand of another man. The case was contested by the parties of the present suit jointly against that person upto the High Court and they had lost it. It cannot be said that it was fought out by the plaintiff alone. Hence if by the operation of law a man acquired rights over the certain portion of joint tenancy, it cannot be said that portion should be carved out from the share of the Karta or father of the family or the co-sharer of the joint property who made the arrangement. 10. The concurrent finding of the courts below is that the area 4.28, which is not in the joint tenancy of the parties at the time of the institution of the suit, cannot be included in the share of the plaintiff. It will not be in any way fair to do so on the basis of any provision of law or on the basis of equity, hence the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid portion should be included in 1/2 share of the plaintiff and the remaining land should be given to the defendant as their 1/2 share, cannot be accepted. 11. I, therefore, find no force in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Under the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.