JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts are: On 6.2.1971 Abdul Jalil Khan institutes a law suit for declaratory judgment under Section 229-B Z.A. and L.R. Act in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer. The pleading has set forth the contention that he had been a Shikmi tenant on behalf of Mohd. Yashin's D/1, to D/10 from before abolition of Zamindari. In consequence of vesting, he became sirdar tenant in possession. Defendant Mohd. Yashin's D/1 to D/8 had instituted law suit under Section 175 U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 but was postponed. Also to override his tenurial rights D/6 to D/8 have executed a sale-deed in favour of Ram Niranjan D/9 and Bansraj D/10. The assertion is that vendors had no saleable interest. The relief to declare them as sirdar tenants in possession has been prayed for. On 23.8.1971 an Iqbaldawa in support of claim is lodged by Mohd. Yasin's D/1 to D/5. 2. On 23.8.1971 Ram Niranjan D/9 and Bansraj, D/10 have lodged a written statement in denial of all plaint allegations. The pleadings has set forth the contention that plaintiff was never a Shikmi tenant in possession. Any rights in land, if any, has become extinct. The suit is barred by Section 42 Specific Relief Act. It is averred that Zamindari (sic) had executed a patta Istamrari and handed over possession for tilling. Precisely on 22.3.1960 Mst. Fatima Bibi D/3 and Khatoon Bibi (predecessor-in-interest of defendants D/6 to D/8) have executed a lease of their ?rd share. But they came in possession of entire area. Their names have been entered in mutation. The rest of Zamindars did not execute the lease of their ?rd share. But continuous possession has validated their right and interest. The claim is that he is sirdar tenant for ?rd share by virtue of istamrari lease; the rights accuse for ?rd share because of continuous possession for over six years. That trees have been planted over plot No. 149/6. The relief to dismiss the suit has been prayed for. 3. On pleadings of parties, issues were formulated on 30.6.1972. Parties have been given chance to lead their evidence; documental and oral. Representation by both sides has been made. On 22.3.1976 Asstt. Collector First Class enters an order dismissing the suit. 4. Plaintiff Abdul Jalil Khan lodges an appeal in Commissioner's. On 24.11.1978 Addl. 3. On pleadings of parties, issues were formulated on 30.6.1972. Parties have been given chance to lead their evidence; documental and oral. Representation by both sides has been made. On 22.3.1976 Asstt. Collector First Class enters an order dismissing the suit. 4. Plaintiff Abdul Jalil Khan lodges an appeal in Commissioner's. On 24.11.1978 Addl. Commissioner has upturned the opinion of lower court; the judgment and decree dated 22.3.1976 has been set aside; the suit of plaintiff Abdul Jalil Khan is decreed. Defendant Ram Niranjan's have appealed. 5. Heard the counsel for and against the second appeal. 6. Plaintiff's claim is based on rights arising out of a contract of Shikmi tenancy. This primary claim needs scrutiny. On 3.1.1973 Abdul Jalil Khan P.W. 1 has testified that contract of tenancy was reached twenty four years ago; evidently the contract was negotiated in 1949 corresponding to 1356/1357 Fasli. The contract manifestly was a written document which, he pleads, is no more; lost beyond recall is 1956. He tells Kedamath was scribe of Qabuliat. Further, he is sure 'patta khushki' was written five days after the contract of Shikmi. In sharp contrast is the evidence of Kedarnath P.W. 2 who testified on 3.1.1973. He acknowledge that 'Qabuliat Khushki' was written by him but not the lease. In another radical departure, he avers that nothing down of transaction had taken place one year before the contract itself. To make things more confusing, Mohd. Yasin P.W. 3 on 4.1.1973 testified that lease was negotiated at the house of Majid but it was all an oral contract. Importantly, he feigns ignorance about lease. On 4.1.1973 Qamaruddin P.W. 4 claims that contract was negotiated at his own house. There are a plenty variant confusing various how the contract of Shikmi lease was brought about. Also needless distinction is made in lease Khushki, patta, Qabuliat. "It is all confusion, all coherence gone", one might almost say with poet Donne echoing difference bewilderments. The evidence touching contract of Shikmi is demonstrably thin. An English poem sums up the situation for Abdul Jalil Khans: Actual evidence I have none. But my aunt's char woman's sister's son Heard a policeman on his beat. Say to a house maid in Downing street That he had a brother who had a friend Who knew the war was going to end. It is to be regretted that Addl. But my aunt's char woman's sister's son Heard a policeman on his beat. Say to a house maid in Downing street That he had a brother who had a friend Who knew the war was going to end. It is to be regretted that Addl. Commissioner did not examined the evidence within an acute sense of discrimination. 7. There are other telling circumstances which show that plaintiffs claim is not credible. Mutation in favour of Ram Niranjan and Bansraj is made in 1971 as a result of patta Istamrari executed by Mst. Fatima Bibi D/3 and Khatoon Bibi (predecessor-in-interest of defendant's D/6 to D/8) Khatooni of 1378 to 1390 Fasli bears out amaldaramad favouring Ram Nirjan's. No protest against mutation ever made by plaintiff Abdul Jalil Khan. It is significant that at that time possession was an essential element in mutation. The only document to favour plaintiff's is khasra 1366 Fasli and then with a widest gap Khasra 1374 Fasli. This is all. The order favouring contesting defendant's was made by Sub-Divisional Officer on 13.5.1971. Lekhpal has supported possession of Ram Niranjan's. There is default on part of plaintiff when he did not protest against the execution of patta Istamrari but Mst. Fatima Bibi D/3 and Khatoon Bibi. Defendants D/1 to D/5 have taken a turnabout in supporting plaintiff's claim and contention. Defendants have filed khasra Istamrari executed by Smt. Fatima Bibi. Khasra 1368 Fasli, 1369-F, 1370-F, 1371 -F records the names of contesting defendants: Ram Niranjan and Bansraj. In Khasra 1373 Fasli, 1375-F 1376-F, and 1377-F the name of Abdul Jalil Khan, never figures as Shikmi tenant. Khatoni 1378 to 1380 Fasli records names of Zamindars. Even Khasra 1366 Fasli has name of Abdul Jalil Khan with a significant note that claim of Shikmi tenant has been abandoned. The isolated entry of 1374 Fasli in favour of Abdul Jalil is too thin to bear his claim of Shikmi right and possession. Addl. Commissioner has not considered all the evidence and has come to the starting conclusion that" plaintiff has established that he is Shikmi tenant and sirdar in possession. This is not at all so. 8. Second appeal is allowed; order of Addl. Commissioner dated 24.11.1978 is set aside. The suit of plaintiff is dismissed in accordance with the opinion of court below dated 22.3.1976. Order accordingly.