JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a second 331 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act filed by defendant Umaruddin, Subeydin and Aijazuddin sons of Mangat against the judgment and decree of the Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated September 8, 1981 confirming the judgment and decree dated August 8, 1979 passed by Revenue Officer, Muzaffarnagar in suit No. 71 under Sections, 176/229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the plaintiff Rustam filed a suit under Section 229-B/176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act alleging that the land in suit belong to defendant No. 1 Mangat and the deceased Bhullar who were real brothers of the plaintiff. On Bhuller's death his share devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 Mangat being brothers hence the plaintiff's share is th while the share of defendant and his heirs namely the other defendants in 3-4th. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff has no title because Bhullar during is life-time, had executed sale deeds of his share in favour of the defendants No. 2 to 4 and therefore, no share of Bhullar could devolve upon the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. 4. The trial court rejected the defence version and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The same judgment and decree were upheld in appeal as well. Hence this second appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. It it proved from the evidence that Mangat and Bhullar both were co-tenants of the disputed land both had half share each. The plaintiff's case is that on the death of Bhullar his half share went equally to the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and, therefore, plaintiff's share is th. The defence version of that Bhullar had executed sale deed of his share in favour of defendant No. 2 to 4 has been disbelieved by both the courts below on the ground that such sale deeds were cancelled by the Civil Court. The finding of both the courts below is concurrent on this point and is found proved from the evidence on record. Consequently the finding of both the courts below that the plaintiff has th share is absolutely correct and there is no ground to interfere in the same. No other point of law has arisen in this appeal. 7. The finding of both the courts below is concurrent on this point and is found proved from the evidence on record. Consequently the finding of both the courts below that the plaintiff has th share is absolutely correct and there is no ground to interfere in the same. No other point of law has arisen in this appeal. 7. The result is that this appeal also has no force and its dismissed. The judgments and decree passed by both the courts below are upheld. Let the record be sent back to the trial court for framing final decree.