JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.5.86 passed by Sri Awadh Saran, Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division Jhansi in appeal No. 30/4/83 of 1984-85 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.10.84 passed by Sri Rajendra Prasad, Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Karvi Mau, District Banda in suit No. 97 of 1983. 2. The facts of the case are that Badri Prasad, Mata Prasad, Ganga Prasad and Ram Siya sons of Bodhan filed a suit u/s 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in respect of plot Nos. 619, 620, 621, 623, 624 and 625 area 7-5-0 against Babu Lal and others, alleging that the land in dispute was acquired by their common ancestor Mahadeo. Upon his death, his sons jointly came in possession and ownership with Babu Lal as karta of the family. Babu Lal was recorded in representative capacity against the plots in dispute though both Babu Lal and Bodhan continued to be in joint possession. After Bodhan died the plaintiffs held the land jointly along with the defendant Babu Lal. It was therefore, prayed to declare the plaintiffs as co-tenants along with the defendant. 3. The defendant Babu Lal contested the suit and denied the allegations. His case is that the land in dispute was solely acquired by him and that he has been continuing in exclusive possession since before the abolition of zamindari. It has been further stated that Mahadeo had surrendered the land before the abolition of zamindari subsequent to the surrender the land in dispute remained Banjar. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed seven issues and decreed the suit, on 27.10.84 holding the plaintiffs co-tenants along with the defendant Babu Lal. Aggrieved by this decree, the defendant went in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner who disposed of the appeal, did not agree with the findings of the learned trial court and allowed the appeal on 1.5.86. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sarvasri V.B. Khare and L.P. Tewari, Advocates appeared for the appellant and Sri Ratan Singh for the respondent. Marshalling the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant have contended that the pedigree is admitted and the ancestor Mahadeo is recorded in the Khatauni 1314F. Babu Lal and Bodhan were sons of Mahadeo. Sarvasri V.B. Khare and L.P. Tewari, Advocates appeared for the appellant and Sri Ratan Singh for the respondent. Marshalling the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant have contended that the pedigree is admitted and the ancestor Mahadeo is recorded in the Khatauni 1314F. Babu Lal and Bodhan were sons of Mahadeo. They have further argued that the co-tenancy is proved from the fact that there is no evidence that the land was the sole acquisition of Babu Lal, that the identity of the and has not changed. Their another contention is that once it is proved that the land is khudkast from the common ancestor, co-proprietor becomes co-sharer. They have further argued that Section 18 (a) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act does not make any distinction between one type of khudkast from the other type of khudkast. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that since out of 8 plots only 6 are in dispute, the identity of the land has changed. On the point of continuity, his contention is that it has also broken because the land held by Mahadeo ceased to be khudkast in the khasra 1333F wherein it is recorded as Jadid. Referring to clause 2 (b) of para 124 of the Land Records Manual, the learned counsel has contended that the character of the land recorded in 1314F was changed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on 1979 RD 158 and 1973 RD 183 . In reply, the learned counsel for the appellant have contended that besides the plaintiff and the defendant some other persons are also recorded in the khewat but the plaintiffs being the beirs of Mahadeo, have claimed their rights. No claim was, however, made by those who were not the heirs of Mahadeo. The learned counsel have also placed reliance on 1973 RD 183 . 7. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. It appears, from the findings of the learned trial court that Mahadeo was recorded as khudkast in 1314F with a period of three years. In 1333 and 1359F, the land is recorded as banjar. In the khatauni 1359F, the defendant Babu Lal is recorded in Ziman-9 Fikra-2 as khudkast. In the khewat 1314 and 1333F, Mahadeo is recorded along with other Zaminars. In 1333 and 1359F, the land is recorded as banjar. In the khatauni 1359F, the defendant Babu Lal is recorded in Ziman-9 Fikra-2 as khudkast. In the khewat 1314 and 1333F, Mahadeo is recorded along with other Zaminars. In the khewat of 1356-59F Badri Prasad major and other minor plaintiffs were recorded, along with Babu Lal. On the basis of these entries, the learned trial court is not prepared to accept that Mahadeo had surrendered the land before the abolition of zamindari and the defendant Babu Lal had solely acquired the land. The learned Additional Commissioner has reversed the findings of the learned trial court on the ground that after the land was recorded as khudkast in Ziman-9 Fikra-2 in 1359F, the tenancy ceases to be khudkast of Mahadeo. His observation is that khudkast recorded in 1359F is that khudkast which commenced after 1333F. He has further observed that if a khudkasht is not cultivated for three consecutive years, the entry of khudkasht is expunged. He has further observed that all the co-proprietors of a khata of khudkast are not co-sharers. 8. The findings given by the learned Additional Commissioner are legally sound. Mere being a co-proprietor, a person cannot be co-sharer. The emphasis u/s 18 (1) (a) of the Act with regard to khudkasht is on actual cultivation. A person seeking co-tenancy along with a tenant holding khudkast has to prove that he is in actual cultivatory possession along with the person recorded as khudkast. This view has been taken by the Hon'ble R.M. Sahai J. of the Allahabad High Court in Prabhu Dayal v. D.D.C., 1979 RD 158 wherein it has been held that: "A proprietor does not become entitled to share cultivatory rights merely by reason of being a proprietor. It is a different thing that he may be entitled to a declaration of ownership or compensation but unless the title to the khudkasht is established a co-proprietor cannot claim co-khudkast rights." The facts of the present case and that of the case under reference are similar. The ruling is, therefore, fully applicable to the present case. I do not find any law to support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that once it is proved that khudkast is from the common ancestor, co-proprietor becomes co-sharer. Their contention is, therefore, not tenable. 9. In the result, this appeal fails and is consequently dismissed.