JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, Member - The present review petition was filed by the plaintiff-appellants Mewa and others for reviewing the order dated October 17, 1981 passed by Sri Roshan Lal, I.A.S., Member, Board of Revenue, since transferred. By the said order the learned Member dismissed the second appeal No. 112 of 1975-76, Hardoi. 2. The plaintiff petitioners claimed the disputed plot Nos. 159 and 749 as ancestral property and claimed co-tenancy rights in these plots which case was not accepted by the trial court, first appellant court or second appellate court. Now the present review petitions is filed to show that in fact these plots were also ancestral plots. 3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the findings of all the three counts that these plots were not ancestral were wrong. According to him Ram bilas, defendant did not enter into witness box. In his place the evidence of his son was accepted which was wrong. In 1942 Ram Bilas admitted joint acquisition in another case to avoid which he did not enter in the witness box. According to him in 1942 the land in suit was acquired by Ram Bilas in his name under representative capacity being Karta of the family which case was not considered by the courts below. The learned counsel for the opposite party supported the judgment of the Board as correct and argued that there was no occasion for interference through the present review petition. 4. We have considered the above arguments of the learned counsels for the parties. Sri Ram Bilas never admitted the land in suit as ancestral even in 1942. After considering the entire evidence on record all the courts came to the conclusion that the land in suit was not the ancestral property of the parties and that Ram Bilas was the sole tenant of it. The fact that in another Khata the names of other branches was recorded clearly indicates that in the joint property the names of all the parties were recorded, while other separate property over the disputed plots the name of Ram Bilas alone was recorded. Ram Bilas never admitted that these disputed plots were joint property of the parties. There is no force in the present review petition which is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.