JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is second appeal against the Judgement dated 8-10-1984 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 20-12-1983 of the trial court. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the relevant papers on file. 3. The facts in brief are that on 15-2-1980 a suit under Sections 229-B/ 176 of U.P. Act No. 1, 1951 was filed by Shivji and others against Ravindra Nath and others. It is alleged that the land in dispute is ancestral property and there was a registered patta in favour of Ram Awadh (Grand-father of defendant) and Suraj Deo (father of the plaintiffs). This patta was executed on 23-11-1936; hence plaintiffs sought for a declaration that they are co-tenants to the extent of share of the land in suit. On 6-6-1980 written statement was filed by Birendra Singh and others. They denied the right of plaintiffs and alleged that it was not ancestral property. This property was acquired exclusively by the ancestor of the defendants and they are exclusive owner. It is also alleged that so called patta was never executed and it was never acted upon, the plaintiffs were not in possession. 4. The trial court had decreed the suit and held that on the basis of patta of 1936, the property was ancestral property and the plaintiffs have share over the land in suit and they were declared co-tenants of the in suit. The lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the trial court and has given reasons for accepting the findings of the trial court. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the courts below have not correctly interpreted the entries in 1345 fasli and 1355 fasli. The so-called patta was never acted upon; secondly, there is no evidence to show the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in suit, and some rent receipts of the zamindar are of no value; thirdly, new rights have accrued after the date of vesting. 6. I see no force in the arguments of the learned counsel. If there is an iota of evidence that the property was acquired by the ancestors of the parties, it should be declared to be ancestral property, the same is the fact in the present case. 6. I see no force in the arguments of the learned counsel. If there is an iota of evidence that the property was acquired by the ancestors of the parties, it should be declared to be ancestral property, the same is the fact in the present case. The burden is on the other side to prove that it was exclusively acquired by one branch of the family and it has not been done so by the defendants; hence the absence of entry of one branch cannot wash away the nature of ancestral property. After the date of vesting the nature of the land cannot be changed if it was ancestral; it remains ancestral, it cannot be said that after the date of vesting the ancestral property has become a separate property of person as recorded in the revenue paper; long existence of entry in favour of one branch of the family will not oust the right of other branch from the ancestral property. The possession is immaterial in question of co-tenancy right; hence it is of no value, although some rent receipts from the zamindar have been filed. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiffs are co-tenants to the extent of share. I see no illegality or error apparent on the face of it; as such the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. I therefore, see no force in the second appeal and it is hereby dismissed with costs.