JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This second appeal has been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated June 6, 1973 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court dated July 21, 1971. 2. The facts, in brief, are the plaintiff Smt. Simla, filed a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act I of 1951 alleging that Musaddi was the original tenure holder of the land in dispute, that his son, Kanwal Singh, Nain Singh and Ballo Singh succeeded to his rights, and that Balloo Singh's share was inherited by his widow Smt. Durdi Devi who transferred this share to the plaintiff. The suit was contested by Nain Singh. The trial court decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal holding that the claim of the plaintiff was admitted by the defendants. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was barred by Section 34(5) of the Land Revenue Act, that the admission of the parties could be read only after the evidence of the defendant-appellant was taken. Relying on 1983 R.D. 35, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent was not recorded and as such no suit was maintainable under Sec. 176 of U.P. Act I of 1951. Against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that an application was moved under Section 34(5) of U.P. Land Revenue Act and he had filed a copy of the order dated July 14, 1970. On that basis he says that the suit was not barred under Section 34(5) of Land Revenue Act. 5. I find that the share of Smt. Durgi Devi came to the plaintiff-respondent and an application for mutation was moved but it was rejected only on the ground that a suit was pending for declaration of Bhumidhari rights. I find that there was a sale deed and share of Smt. Durgi Devi was duly transferred. As such the decision reported in 1983 R.D. 35 is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Here, the share was sold out and the purchaser had tried to bring her name on revenue records. On account of pendency of suit, the mutation was to ordered. As such the decision reported in 1983 R.D. 35 is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Here, the share was sold out and the purchaser had tried to bring her name on revenue records. On account of pendency of suit, the mutation was to ordered. I find that the bar of Section 34(5) of Land Revenue Act was not there. Both the courts below have held that the share of the plaintiff-respondent would be equal to the share of Smt. Durgi Devi who had transferred this share. Consequently, this second appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.