JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This appeal has been filed under Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 17.10.1988 passed in first appeal No. 87 of 1988 arising out of a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The plaintiff appellants filed a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 that he has share in the disputed plots and the rest of the share belongs to defendants 1st set except in plot no. 609 in which the share of the plaintiff-appellant was claimed to be ?rd and that of the defendant 1st set ?rd. The suit was compromised by the defendant 1st set by filing written statement but Rajesh, Brijesh and Pravesh sons of Abhinandan filed application that they had purchased plot no. 1314 area. 30 and 1356 area 2.73 regarding the share of Jageshwar and Maheshwar defendants first set. The trial court decreed the suit that the plaintiff have share and the defendant Jageshwar had th and Maheshwar except in plots no. 1314 and 1356. The share of this plot of Jagesgwar and Maheshwar defendant second set Rajeshwar and other holders. The final decree has also been prepared when against which objection was filed by the defendant that he has been given less area and inferior area. His objection was overruled by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. 3. I heard the leaned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Plot No. 1194 area. 15 does not belong to any one but it was wrongly mentioned in the plaint as well as in the decree. This plot is not allotted in any of the lots. Since this plot does not belong to the parties, hence it should be excluded from the suit and as well as from the final decree, hence the final decree becomes defective. 5. The learned counsel for the appellate argued that his total area has been reduced. His total area according to the share comes to 5.64 by they have allottee only 4.52. 6. I have gone through the record. No explanation appears to be satisfactory given about this reduction of the area in the lots in accordance with the share of the parties. His total area according to the share comes to 5.64 by they have allottee only 4.52. 6. I have gone through the record. No explanation appears to be satisfactory given about this reduction of the area in the lots in accordance with the share of the parties. The trial court is also directed to determine the area according to the valuation of the land of each party. No such exercise was done, therefore, the final decree appears to be defective, hence the appeal against that is allowed and the lots prepared are set aside and the trial court is directed to prepare the lots according to rules and the trial court also to consider that should not be reduced much more that than their share. The trial court is directed to prepare lots afresh in accordance with law and the share of the parties.