JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This second appeal has been filed under Section 331(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the decree and judgment of the Addl. Commissioner, Moradabad dated 22.5.1987 passed in first appeal no. 170/57 of 1986-87 against the decree and judgment of Sri Nand Kishore Arth, S.D.O. Moradabad dated 30.9.1982 passed in suit No. 83 of 1982 under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 3. This second appeal is against the preliminary decree that is a determination of shares of parties. In brief the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for partition claiming share alongwith defendant 1st set and pleading share of the rest of the defendants-respondents except Gaon Sabha. The defendants-respondents contested the claim pleading ?th share of the plaintiff appellant and defendants 1st set and ? of the rest of the defendants. The plaintiff has also set up a pedigree which defendant has accepted, There is no dispute on this point. The defendants claim is that the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1st set along-with the rest of the defendants acquired the suit plots about 35 years ago, hence the shares shall be determined according to the acquisition of the parties. They denied the common acquisition of parties ancestor. Whereas the appellant claim was that the acquisition at the time of common ancestor. Both the courts below rejected the claim of the plaintiff-appellants to decide share. Hence this second appeal on the point of determination of share. 4. In Khatauni 1356 fasli father of the plaintiff-appellant alongwith the contesting defendants were recorded occupancy tenants. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the occupancy tenants are the tenants who were in possession under the Agra Tenancy Act 1901 or wherein possession under the Act X of 1859, Act XVIII of 1873 and Act No. XII of 1881. The Agra Tenancy Act of the 1926 provide these tenants as occupancy tenants who were as such in above Acts recorded as occupancy tenants or were in possession and become occupancy tenants under the Agra Tenancy Act 1926. After that a bar was imposed to acquire occupancy tenancy act except who acquired the right through registered deed under Section 17 of Agra Tenancy Act 1926. After that a bar was imposed to acquire occupancy tenancy act except who acquired the right through registered deed under Section 17 of Agra Tenancy Act 1926. In this way the entry of occupancy tenants in 1356 fasli provides the acquisition of the dispute plots well before 1926 A.D. Therefore, the acquisition was at the time of common ancestor. It is on account of death of contesting respondents father that they were recorded in Khatauni and father of plaintiff-appellant and defendants 1st set was alive. Therefore, he was alone recorded, This entry was according to the mode of succession which were opened after the death of ancestor of respective two branches. Common ancestors acquisition is proved beyond doubt by Khatauni 1356 fasli. Hence this second appeal is allowed and judgment and preliminary decree of both the courts below are set aside and the share of the plaintiff-appellant and that of the defendant respondent 1st set as i.e. the share of each one is ?, sixth each and that of respondent 1 to 3 one sixth each and that the respondent 4 to 61/8. The trial court is directed to prepare re-preliminary decree and than to proceed to prepare and decide the final decree.