JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This second appeal has been filed under Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the decree and judgment of Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 30.3.1974 passed in appeal no. 105 of 1972-73 Varanasi reversing the judgment and decree dated 9.10.1972 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class, Varanasi in suit no. 30 under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that Arjun Ram, Jittu Lal and Gulam filed the suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 that plot no. 173 area 77 acre and 352 area 69 acre of Village Pandepur, Pergana Shivpur, district Varanasi was acquired by plaintiff and ancestor of defendants first set as detailed in the pedigree. The share or Mulla was sold in the disputed plots to Bhagoo. After some time there was partition in the family. Bhangoo has sold the above two plots in favour of Shiv Baran. Although these plots were given in their possession in the family settlement. Defendants second set have been impleaded in the suit because they are tenants of plot no. 323/2 area .6 acre. Hence this suit for declaration of plot no. 173/2 area 28 acre for sole bhumidhari. The defendants 1, 2 and 7 admitted the pedigree but denied the claim of the plaintiff. They also claimed that plots no. 173 and 252 was ancestral property but the rest of the area was acquired by Bahgoo in his own capacity. The trial court after taking the evidence of the parties suit was dismissed on 9.10.1972. The appeal was filed against that judgment and decree before the Additional Commissioner who has allowed the appeal and has decreed the suit, hence this second appeal has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. No one is present for the appellant. No one is present for the respondents. Perused the record. 4. The pedigree has been given in the plaint and judgment of the trial court and that of the 1st appellate Court which is as under:- 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that property was acquired by Ram Dihal who had three sons Bhaggo, Bhan and Mulla. Ban and Mulla sold their ?rd share to Bhangoo. 4. The pedigree has been given in the plaint and judgment of the trial court and that of the 1st appellate Court which is as under:- 5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that property was acquired by Ram Dihal who had three sons Bhaggo, Bhan and Mulla. Ban and Mulla sold their ?rd share to Bhangoo. In this way Bhagoo had acquired ?rd share in his own capacity and ?rd share of Bhaggo was ancestral. Since the land in dispute was fixed rate tenancy, therefore the perosnal law will be applicable and after the sale of Bhango will be having their share in ?rd share of Bhaggoo, therefore Bhaggoo has right to sell the share of his son regarding the ancestral property in respect of ?rd share whole. The trial court has found the contention of the defendant and appellant is second appeal to be true but the first appellate court has upset that finding. No one is present for the respondent, therefore, on this legal point the appeal is allowed and the order of the first appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored.