JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by Sri V. S. Trivedi, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, dated 19-9-77 in appeal no. 90 of 1977. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Alladin had filed a suit against Ram Bharosey and others under Section 176 of U.P. Act I of 1951 in respect of plots no. 110/2/2, area 0-3-0 and 151, area 44-2-0 situate in village Pukari Pargana Naraini, district Banda, alleging that the land was acquired by Baidu, father of the plaintiff and Ram Dm, ancestor of defendants nos. 2 to 8 through a lease from the Zamindar, that the share of the plaintiff's father was one-half and the share of Ram Din and others was also one-half, and that after the death of Baidu and Ram Din, the plaintiff and the defendants succeeded to the shares of their parents. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for partition. Ram Bharosey and others, defendants contested the case of the plaintiff alleging that the land was acquired by the plaintiff and Dwarka Prasad, father of the defendants nos. 2 to 4 and Baij Nath, Mathura and Lalua, father of defendants nos. 7 and 8, that the plaintiff had only ?th share, defendants nos. 2 to 4 had ?th share, defendant no. 5 had ?th share, defendant no. 6 had ?th share and defendants nos. 7 and 8 together had ?th share, and that the plaintiff and defendants were in possession on their shares of the land. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court. An appeal was preferred against that order of the trial court which was allowed by the learned Addl. Commissioner on 19-9-77. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court. An appeal was preferred against that order of the trial court which was allowed by the learned Addl. Commissioner on 19-9-77. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits the plaintiff as well as respondents were recorded in joint possession over the land in dispute in 1333F and in this way the appellant as well as respondents will have share each, that the case was governed by Agra Tenancy Act which was replaced by the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1946 and consequently in 1356 Fasli, the appellant as well as the four respondents were recorded as chief tenants in Ziman 8 with a period of eleven years which shows that from the date of commencement of the U.P. Tenancy Act new period had started, that the lower appellate court has committed a manifest error of law in ignoring the entry of khasra 1333 Fasli, and that it also committed an error in basing its finding on the entry recorded in 1356 Fasli. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner found that the origin of tenancy was not in 1333 Fasli when the plaintiff's father was recorded in adverse possession, but it started in 1346 Fasli when the plaintiff and defendants took the land on lease. He arrived at this finding on the basis of entry in the khatauni of 1356F in which the period of tenancy was shown to have been of eleven years. On the basis of that he came to the conclusion that the tenancy started in 1346 Fasli. In Khatauni 1356 Fasli the land was recorded in the name of the plaintiff and four defendants, namely, Baijnath, Mathura. Dwarka and Lalua. On the basis of these entries, the learned Additional Commissioner held the share of the plaintiff to be ?th, of defendants nos. 2 to 4 together ?th, of defendant no 5 to be ?th, of defendant no. 6 as ?th and that of defendants nos. 7 and 8 together ?th. I find that if the tenancy had started in the year 1333 Fasli, then the period should not have been written as eleven years in 1356F. The view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner suffers from no illegality. 6. Consequently, this second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.