JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by Sri V.S. Trivedi Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dated August 23, 1978 in Appeal No. 145 of 1977-78. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that Sevaka filed a suit against Prahlad and others under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951 alleging that he had been in continuous possession over the land in suit and his name was recorded as a Sirdar, that defendants No. 3 got his name recorded under class 9 in connivance with the Lekhpal and Kanungo, and that the defendant had no concern with the land in suit. He prayed for a declaration as Sirdar in possession of the land in suit, and that in case defendant No. 3 was found to be in possession, he may be ejected and the possession restored to the plaintiff. The suit was contested by defendant No. 3 alleging that he was in possession over the land in dispute from before the abolition of Zamindari and had as such become Sirdar under Section 210 of U.P. Act 1 of 1951, that P.A. 10 slip was given to the plaintiff but he took no action, and that rent was being paid by the defendant. Four issues were framed by the trial court, and the suit was decreed by the trial court holding that entry under class 9 was not made in accordance with the provisions contained in Paras A-80, A-81, A-102-C and 423 of the Land Records Manual. The trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession over the land in suit and that the entry in class 9 in favour of defendant No. 3 was forged one and against the provisions of law. An appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 3. I have the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no plea of co-tenancy was taken in the plaint by the plainting, and as such this plea could not be taken by the learned Additional Commission. 3. I have the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no plea of co-tenancy was taken in the plaint by the plainting, and as such this plea could not be taken by the learned Additional Commission. Against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that that the plaintiff had failed to establish his rights as a Bhumidhar, and that the law of pleading is not and should not be very strict. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that since the earlier suit was withdrawn with costs, and no costs were paid, as such this plea was not maintainable. 5. In find that the earlier suit, which was withdrawn, was under Section 176 of U.P. Act I of 151, and in a suit under Section 176, there is no declaration in respect of title of parties and, as such, that withdrawal of the suit will not operate as an estoppel against the defendant. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the plaintiff-appellant was the only heir of Smt. Nanhi, w/o Sahai, and the finding to the contrary recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner were incorrect. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner has held that the plaintiff and the defendant belonged to the same family, that Sahai, Kanhai, Raghubar and Raghubir were four real brothers, that Sahai died issueless, and that Prahlad was the grand son Kanhai, while Sevaka was the son of Raghubir. The learned Additional commissioner was also of the view that Jhagaruya, Bhagat Sevaka and Saru were at the same degree of relationship with Sahai and, therefore, Sevaka alone could not succeed to the land of Sahay. I find that though this plea was not taken in the plaint but still from the evidence of the witnesses the fact of joint ownership was established. As such, the view expressed by the learned Additional Commissioner suffers from no illegality. The learned Additional Commissioner has discussed the evidence in detail and has come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff should fail. I find that this view of the learned Additional Commissioner suffers from no illegality and calls for no interference by the Court. 7. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.