JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut dated December 23, 1977 through which the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 Sube Ram against the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Muzaffarnagar dated June 24, 1977 was partly allowed in a case under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. and Land reforms Act. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the appellant Phulkara filed a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 giving the following pedigree in the plaint:- His case is that the property belonged to Smt. Risali widow of Chhajju. She died in 1976. On her death the plaintiff phulkara and his brother Bhum Singh and the defendant No. 2 Suba were alive. All of them were the brother's sons of the husband of Smt. Risal, hence all of them got equal share and the plaintiff share is, therefore, ?rd and that of defendants No. 1 and 2 is also ? each and that the defendants No. 3 to 12 have no share. 3. Thus suit was contested by Sube with the allegation that he share of Sube was 1-2 and that the share of Sube and that the plaintiff and Dhoom Singh had th share each. 4. The trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit and held his share to be ?rd. The appeal filed by Suba was partly allowed and his share was declared to be by the Additional Commissioner and the remaining was held to belong to Dhoom Singh and the plaintiffs Phulkara. This appeal has been preferred against the same judgment. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. It was admitted case of the parties that the defendants No. 3 to 12 have no share in the land in dispute. It is also admitted that the land belonged to Smt. Risali who was the widow of Chhajju and that the latter had died during the life time of Genda. The death of Chhajju is admitted to have occurred om 1919. The entire pedigree is also admitted by both the parties. Now the main dispute is whether succession will be governed by taking Genda as the last made tenant or Chhajju as the last male tenant. The death of Chhajju is admitted to have occurred om 1919. The entire pedigree is also admitted by both the parties. Now the main dispute is whether succession will be governed by taking Genda as the last made tenant or Chhajju as the last male tenant. Plaintiff's counsel argued that since Risali had succeeded to the property from her husband Chhajju, hence he has to be taken as the last tenant male tenant for devolution. 7. As against this argument the learned counsel for the respondent contended that since Chhajju had pre-deceased Genda, hence it is Genda who shall be taken to be the last male tenant for the purpose of succession. In my opinion the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is correct. Chhajju having dies during the life time of Genda the last male tenant would be deemed Genda and not chajju for the purposes of section 171 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 for determining the question of succession. The learned Additional Commissioner also came to the same finding and by holding Genda as the last male tenant, he found that the shared of Sube is and the plaintiff Phulkara and defendant No. 1 Dhoom Singh had th share each. In my opinion the finding arrived at by him is perfectly correct and is in accordance with the spirit of Section 171 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, hence the share determine by him must be upheld. The plaintiff's claim for ?rd share was wrong and was rightly turned down by the learned Additional Commissioner. The finding of the trial court upholding ?rd share of the plaintiff was, therefore, wrong and was rightly rejected by the learned Additional Commissioner. 8. In view of the above discussion, I find no force in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional Commissioner are upheld. Let the record be sent back to the trail court for preparing final decree.