JUDGMENT

H. N. Seth, J. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal. Plaintiff Jaidev filed a suit for a declaration that certain plots were wrongly entered in the name of the father of defendants Nos. I and 2, and that he had a right to get his name entered in respect of these plots. Plaintiff, in the alternative, claimed that in case it was found that he was not exclusively entitled to get his name entered over these plots, he would be entitled to get his name entered jointly over these plots and some other plots along with defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Plaintiff's case was that certain Nap land (hereinafter referred as Hissedari land) mentioned in the plaint formerly belonged jointly to him and the predecessor in interest of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. There was a private partition between him and the predecessor in interest of the defendants. The plaintiff got the land to the north of the line A B shows in the map attached to the plaint whereas defendants got the land to its south. Thereafter the parties extended their cultivation to some unmeasured land and it was alleged that the plaintiff extended his cultivation to plot No. 9382 to 9393 and plots Nos. 9435 to 9440 adjacent to his plots. Defendants also extended their cultivation to other unmeasured plots Nos. 9431 to 9434 adjoining their Hissedari plots. In the revenue record the name of the father of the defendants was, wrongly entered in respect of the plots i.e. plots Nos. 9382 to 9393 and 9435 to 9440 to which the plaintiff had extended his cultivation under the provisions of the Kumaon Nayabad and Waste Land Act, 1948. When he came to know about the wrong entries in the records in the year 1958 he made an application to the A. R. 0. for mutation of his name but his application was rejected. It was under these circumstances that he prayed for a declaration that he was the owner of the plots to which he extended his cultivation. If for some reason it was found that he was not en- titled to have his name exclusively entered in respect of those plots his name should be jointly entered along with defendants Nos. 1 and 2 over all the plots to which the parties had extended these cultivation i.e. over plots Nos. 9382 to 9393 and 9431 to 9440. Defendants Nos. 3 to 9 who became owners of the land in Khata No. 46 had no interest in the plots in dispute and had been implead- ed merely as proforma defendants.

2. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that no partition took place between the parties in the manner alleged by the plaintiff. Defendants claim that plots Nos. 9382 to 9393 and 9431 to 9440 were correctly' entered in the name of their father and that it was he who extended the cultivation to these plots at his own cost. They claimed to be in possession of those plots since the time of their father and that the plaintiff never extended his cultivation to these plots. According to the defendants, the entire land extended by the plaintiff had been entered in his name and the land extended by their father was entered in the name of the latter and the entries were correctly made in the revenue records.

3. After considering the evidence produced in the case the trial court came to the conclusion that the entire Hissedari land was joint and so the extension made by any co-sharer would also belong to other co-sharers jointly. According to it, if one co-sharer is in possession of a piece of land that would be deemed to be the possession on behalf of all the co-sharers. In view of the finding that the parties jointly owned the entire Hissedari land the trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree to the extent that the parties were the joint owners of the plots to which the cultivation had been extended by any of the co-sharer.

4. The defendants went up in appeal and it was contended that the trial court erred in holding that even though one co-sharer may have extended cultivation to the, plots in dispute, it Would still belong to all the co-sharers. According