JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - Shishpal Singh one of the defendants have brought this second appeal under Section 331 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the Judgement and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 24-1-1980 allowing the appeal of the plaintiff Jabar Singh against the Judgement and decree of S.D.O. Bulandshar dated 30-1-1979 dismissing his suit under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The facts of the case in nut - shell are that the plaintiff Jabar Singh and his brother Dalel Singh were recorded bhumidhars. Plaintiff alleged that Dalel Singh had died issueless and the plaintiff being his brother his heir and is the sole bhumidhar. His case is that the defendants forcibly occupied the land in dispute in 1379 fasli and are liable to ejectment. The defense was that the land is not identifiable and the plaintiff has no cause of action and that the rights of the defendants have perfected under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A.and L.R. Act. The appellant Shishpal Singh was also impleaded as a defendant because he had purchased plot no. 1198 belonging to defendants nos. 1 and 2 and he had also forcibly occupied the disputed plot no. 1197 which is adjacent to plot no. 1198. His plea was that since rights of the defendants nos. 1 and 2 had perfected by adverse possession, hence he also became sirdar of the land as a consequence of transfer of plot no. 1197. 3. The trial court appointed an advocate commissioner and on his report it found that the land was not identifiable and accordingly dismissed the suit. 4. On appeal that finding was reversed. The learned Additional Commissioner held the land to be identifiable and further held that the suit was within limitation and that the possession of the defendant was unlawful and, therefore, he decreed the suit. This appeal has been preferred against the same Judgement and decree. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant laid stress mainly on two points firstly that the plaintiff is not entitled to sue because it is not proved that he is the heir of the deceased Dalel Singh and that the land was not identifiable. 7. After going through the record I find that both of the above two arguments are without any pith or substance. 7. After going through the record I find that both of the above two arguments are without any pith or substance. The plaintiff and the deceased Dalel Singh both are recorded as co-tenure-holders. It is not denied that Dalel Singh has died hence the plaintiff alone was entitled to file the suit for ejectment. The suit is, therefore, competent. 8. As regards the identifiability of the land I find that there is no question of not holding the land to be not identifiable because the land in despute finds place in Khasra, Khatauni as well as in the map prepared by the consolidation authorities. Those entries have become final and cannot be challenged in this suit. Merely because Mend of any field has been broken it would not mean that the land has lost identifiability. I am therefore, in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner. The finding of the trial court in not holding the land to be identifiable was perverse and was against the evidence on record. Consequently the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on both these points has failed. 9. As regards the question of perfection of the title of the defendants under Section 210 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 it is obvious that defendants no. 1 and 2 have not preferred any appeal. They were originally the tenants of plot no. 1198 which is contigous with the disputed land and which had been annexed with the same. They lost their rights as soon as they withdrew their possession by selling the own plot to defendant no.3 the defendant no. 3 namely the present appellant, therefore, came into possession only after purchasing the contiguous plot. The possession of the defendant no. 1 and 2 being unlawful on the disputed plot cannot be transferred to defendant no. 3 hence the Letters possession would be counted only from the date when he came into possession and it cannot be tagged with the period of unlawful occupation of the defendants nos. 1 and 2 in that perspective the possession of the defendant no. 3 therefore, started only from 1379 fasli and, therefore,this suit is perfectly within limitation. The defendants nos 1 and 2 also had not perfected their title because their possession for more than the prescribed period was not proved. 1 and 2 in that perspective the possession of the defendant no. 3 therefore, started only from 1379 fasli and, therefore,this suit is perfectly within limitation. The defendants nos 1 and 2 also had not perfected their title because their possession for more than the prescribed period was not proved. Moreover they have not come in appeal and have not challenged the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner. In such Circumstances the appellant has failed to prove his possession for more than the prescribed period and he cannot be deemed to have perfected his title under Section 210 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The suit was, therefore, wrongly dismissed by the trial court and its Judgement and decree was therefore, rightly set aside by the learned Additional Commissioner. The suit was rightly decreed by the learned Additional Commissioner. 10. This appeal has, therefore, no merits and is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout.