JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a second appeal under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated June 18, 1974 through which the appeal was partly allowed against the judgment and decree of Assistant Collector, 1st Class Muzaffarnagar dated February 25, 1971 in original suit No. 60 under Section 209/229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that plaintiff Haji Din Muhammad and and another brought a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in respect of two plots namely 610/2 and 608/3 towards south area 3-15-0. This case is that they were co-tenants alongwith some other persons of the disputed land some other plots but on account of partition this land came into their exclusive possession and they are sole Sirdars. 3. The defendant Rajjak challenged the rights of the plaintiff, hence they had to bring suit for declaration which was decreed on June 27, 1968. Subsequently the defendant No. 1 Pyara also challenged the rights of the plaintiff, hence this suit was again brought. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's title and possession. Their defence is that the plaintiff had relinquished their possession of the disputed plots in favour of the zamindar and the latter again had let out these plots to the defendant, hence they are Sirdars. 4. The trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred a appeal before the Additional Commissioner who partly allowed the same by maintaining the order of the trial court in respect of Plot No. 610/2 but he allowed the appeal in respect of plot No. 608/3 and decreed the suit about that plot. The defendant did not prefer any appeal against such judgment but this appeal has been brought by the plaintiffs challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner in respect of plot No. 610/2. 5. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. In this appeal the main dispute is concerned only with plot No. 610/2. The defendant did not prefer any appeal against such judgment but this appeal has been brought by the plaintiffs challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner in respect of plot No. 610/2. 5. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. In this appeal the main dispute is concerned only with plot No. 610/2. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the plaintiffs were in possession on the date of the vesting over this land and the entry continued in their favour on the date of vesting, hence it is the plaintiffs who became the Sirdar and not Pyara and that the entry in favour of the latter is wrong. 7. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiffs had surrendered the land before the Zamindar and it was again let out to Pyara, hence she became Sirdar and the plaintiff's rights were extinguished. 8. This argument of the defendant finds support from the documentary evidence on record. A surrendered deed executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the zamindar is on record which shows that the surrender was made on March 10, 1959. From 1370 Fasli onwards Pyara is recorded in possession over this plot. In view of such evidence plaintiff cannot be held to be in possession and the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner is perfectly correct. In such circumstances the plaintiffs right whatsoever they were expired on the execution of the surrender deed in favour of the Zamindar and, therefore, the latter could validly let out the land to any other person. The plaintiffs suit has, therefore, rightly been dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner in respect of plot No. 610/2 and no interference is called for in his order. 9. In view of the above discussion this appeal has no force and is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner are maintained.