JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts are Sumer and Dukhee have instituted this declaratory suit on the ground that they with Kumar D/1 are real brothers, sons of Sheo Prasad. The land is acquisition of their father Sheo Prasad and predecessor-in-interest of defendant's 2 to 4. The share of plaintiff's and Kumar D/1's is 1/2 and equally 1/2 is of defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiffs had made a contract with Zamindar out of Joint Hindu family funds. On death of tenant Sheo Prasad the name alone of Kumar D/1, the eldest son, was recorded in representative capacity; though there has always been joint cultivatory possession. They claim co-tenancy rights and shares division as: Plaintiffs 1/3, D/1's 1/6, Defendant's 2 to 4's is 1/2. That defendant Smt. Meera Agarwal, a vendee from defendants 1 to 4, has no legal right as sale-deed is inoperative and bad in law. The relief of co-bhumidars rights and partition of khata has been prayed for. Three khasra numbers ad-measuring 32 decimals is in contest. 2. Written statement filed by Kumar D/1 on 14.2.72. He pleads the acquisition is not at all Sheo Prasad's but his own plus Ramnath's, Ram Nresh's and Ram Barkch; his share is 1/2 and co-tenants, defendants here, have' the rest 1/2. Not that ever his name is entered in a representative capacity. That id the life time of his father he separated from the family and, then, went into acquire the land. It's not out of joint Hindu family funds; but his own personal. So alone bhumidhar in possession. Pleas of bar of Section 34 (5) Land Revenue Act, Order 23, Rule (1) Civil Procedure Code, Section 34 Specific Relief Act and bar of limitation have been raised. 3. Ram Naresh D/3 and Ram Krishan D/4 have too lodged their written statement in Opposition on 13.3.72. Their stance is emphatically in line with Kumar's D/1. Smt. Meera Agarwal D/5 a vendee from co-defendants, has supported defendants title which by sale-deed dated 6.12.79 has passed on to her. An amendment moved by plaintiff's on 25.6.72 specifying each tenant's share and some other crucial points. Kumar D/1 has introduced a charge in his written statement to claim acquiring land in the life time of his father. Issues were formulated in the light of pleadings. Parties were given chance to lead evidence; documental and oral. An amendment moved by plaintiff's on 25.6.72 specifying each tenant's share and some other crucial points. Kumar D/1 has introduced a charge in his written statement to claim acquiring land in the life time of his father. Issues were formulated in the light of pleadings. Parties were given chance to lead evidence; documental and oral. Shri I.B. Singh, learned Judicial Officer by his judgment and decree dated 27.6.73 has for plots Nos. 2501, 250/2 decreed for ?rd share. He has dismissed suit No. 107/1972 for plot No. 161/60 D. Two suits are leading Case No. is 102/1972 and supplementary Case No. 107/1972. Three appeals were lodged in Commissioner's : (i) Smt. Meera Agarwal Appeal No. 379/1972-73. (ii) Kumar D/1 - Appeal No. 382/1972-73. (iii) Kumar D/4 - Appeal No. 383/1972-73. 4. Additional Commissioner by his judgment and decree dated 9.5.1974 has entered appellate affirance. So the second appeal is carried by them in this court. 5. For appreciation of rival claims the following pedigree is helpful: 6. The pedigree is not in dispute. To begin, whose acquisition the land of law suit No. 108/1972 is ? The extract of death register shows Sheo Prasad died on 14.5.1924. The relevant birth register shows three sons were born in the years 1911, 1916 and 1924. Kumar D/1, the eldest son, was surely born on 29.7.1911. When his father, Sheo Prasad died on 14.5.1924 he was then only 13 years old, a minor, with added liability of two younger ones, the last and youngest Dukhee only a fondling of 4 days, he has sensitively to care for. Further, if the tenure is taken to begin from the fasli year noted in the khatoni of 1334. Fasli for all plots of two law suits save No. 161, he was more younger -------------8 years or there abouts, as is well documented by Additional Commissioner at page 4 was Kumar D/1 in 1327 or 1328 fasli able to earn? Had he separated from his father? Where from capital he had? It beats me, but not the appellant's counsel, how Kumar D/1 could acquire numerous plots from self earning. This circumstance alone takes the wind out of the sails of Kumar D/1's pleadings. He insisted that at the age of 20 he was earning well enough by driving bullock carts. Whence he got the bullock cart? Where from capital he had? It beats me, but not the appellant's counsel, how Kumar D/1 could acquire numerous plots from self earning. This circumstance alone takes the wind out of the sails of Kumar D/1's pleadings. He insisted that at the age of 20 he was earning well enough by driving bullock carts. Whence he got the bullock cart? The tenancy in his name was surely recorded in a representative capacity. On all crucial issues the two courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts. A territory that has been twice tended and trodden should not be re-crossed unless there are substantial questions of law involved within the meaning of Section 100 C.P.C. It includes significantly weight of evidence. I do see proper placement of weight of evidence in sifting and appraisal. From 1334 Fasli Kumar D/1 is recorded at all material times in Khatoni extracts: 1356, 1359, 1362, 1363, 1365, 1366-1368, 1377-1378. The nature of tenancy rose correspondingly: a tenant,sirdar and then bhumidhar. The last khatoni is evidence of sale transaction. The khasra extracts and rent receipts of numerous years affirm possession of younger brothers Sumer and Dukhee. Oral evidence is consistent with pleadings and documental conclusion. The courts below but more precisely Additional Commissioner, subjecting the material is a proper sequence of cause and effect, has made plain: Sheo Prasad's acquisition all three brothers equally share and serve in the inheritance. 7. Of suit No. 107/1972-73 only plot No. 161 needs separate treatment. The khatoni extract of 1356 Fasli bears Kumar D/1's name in varg 20 with 4 years duration. The land came by trespass - a personal enterprise. Khatoni 1359 Fasli enlarges his standing and entry of varg 9 is in subsequent crucial khatauni, : 1362 F. He steals march in Khatauni of 1363-65, 1366-1368. 1368 Fasli khatauni conceratises the tenancy as Sirdari. Further assurance is lent by Khatauni extract of 1377-1379. Plaintiff's have failed to bear out with evidence Sheo Prasad's sub-tenancy. So No. 161 is appellant's. So here too with the opinion of two courts below I concur. 8. Some land came under transfer Khasra Nos. 250/1 (0.11 Acres) and 250/2 (0.21 acres) but of this area only 3 biswa was transferred by a sale-deed' dated 8.8.1969 favouring Panna Lal, a defendant. So No. 161 is appellant's. So here too with the opinion of two courts below I concur. 8. Some land came under transfer Khasra Nos. 250/1 (0.11 Acres) and 250/2 (0.21 acres) but of this area only 3 biswa was transferred by a sale-deed' dated 8.8.1969 favouring Panna Lal, a defendant. So also on 6.12.1969, Kumar, Ramnath and Smt. Somri transferring khasra No. 347 area .24 acres in favour of Smt. Meera Agarwal, a defendant. The same vendors the same day wrote a sale deed of khasra No. 1347 area 0.12 acres to Baldeo Prasad. On his part vendee Baldeo. Prasad executed a sale-deed of his land to Smt. Meera Agarwal on 10.6.1971. Smt. Meera's territorial gains admeasure .36 acres by two registered instruments. So this much area he excluded from the Bhumidhari tenancy of Kumar D/1, whose name lurks so big in this litigation. 9. So the appeals fail and are dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be placed on the appellate file of companion appeal No. 524 and 552 of 1972-73/Varanasi.