JUDGMENT D. S. Mathur, J. - This is a Second Appeal by Ramayan Singh, plaintiff since dead, who is now represented by his legal representatives, Surabhan Singh and others, against the concurrent judgment of the court below, dismissing his suit for injunction and, in the alternative, for possession over plot nos. 1084 and 2234. 2. The material facts of the case are that the above two plots were in the agricultural holding of one Harihar Singh, who had no issue. The plaintiff's case is that after obtaining the consent of the then Zamindar, Harihar Singh made him (Ramayan Singh) a co-tenant of the above plots, and Bhumidhari Sanad in the name of both was eventually obtained on 15-7-1951. The plaintiffs case further is that Harihar Singh borrowed some money from Balbhadra Choubey and Bhagat Choubey, defendants, and handed over the plots to them in lieu of interest; and that in the month of Jeth of the year 1952 the plaintiff repaid the loan and took back possession of the plots. It is said that Harihar Singh had died before the payment of the loan. It is further alleged that after delivery of possession the defendants, changed their mind and instituted a proceeding under Sec. 145, Cr. P. C. wherein they were held to have been in possession of the plots and possession was delivered to them. Thereupon, the plaintiff instituted the present suit for injunction and, in the alternative, for possession claimed himself to be the sole Bhumidhar of the plots. 3. The suit was contested by Balbadra Choubey alone and this is why he alone was made a respondent in the appeal preferred before the District Judge and also in the present appeal. His case is that he as a subtenant of the plots and on the abolition of Zamindari became Adhivasi and later Sirdar. 4. The issue of Adhivasi was referred to the Revenue Court, which recorded the finding that Balbhadra as not an Adhivasi. The courts below, however, recorded the finding that Ramayan Singh, plaintiff, was of the Bhumidhar of the plots and, therefore, dismissed his suit. 5. 4. The issue of Adhivasi was referred to the Revenue Court, which recorded the finding that Balbhadra as not an Adhivasi. The courts below, however, recorded the finding that Ramayan Singh, plaintiff, was of the Bhumidhar of the plots and, therefore, dismissed his suit. 5. The proviso to Sec. 33 of the U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, clearly lays own that no person shall be deemed to be a co-tenant, notwithstanding that he may have shared in the cultivation of the holding, unless he was a co-tenant from the commencement of the tenancy or has become such by succession or has been specifically recognised as such in writing by the landholder. When a person cannot become a co-tenant, unless he is recognised as such in writing by the landholder, mere oral consent is not sufficient to make him co-tenant. Consent in writing must be obtained before such person can be declared a co-tenant. In the instant case, the plaintiff merely-alleged that he became a co-tenant with the consent of the then Zamindar and also of the tenant, Harihar Singh, but no consent in writing was filed. It can, therefore, be assumed that the consent of the Zamindar, as alleged by the plaintiff, was oral and not in writing. When the wording of the proviso to Sec. 33 of the U.P. Tenancy Act is clear and unambiguous, it must be given its ordinary meaning, namely, that oral consent by itself cannot confer any right in the person claiming himself to be a co-tenant. It is different thing that on his remaining in possession for the prescribed period without any action being taken for his ejectment, he may become a hereditary tenant in his own right. The plaintiff was not cultivating the land, in any case for the prescribed period and he could not possibly acquire the status of a hereditary tenant. In other words, under the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, the plaintiff was not and could not be deemed to be a co-tenant along with Harihar Singh of the two plots in dispute, nor did he become a hereditary tenant thereof. 6. The next point for consideration is whether by virtue of Harihar Singh and Ramayan Singh jointly obtaining a Bhumidhari Sanad in their name, Ramayan Singh, plaintiff, can be deemed to have become a co-tenant and later a co-Bhumidhar of the plots. 7. 6. The next point for consideration is whether by virtue of Harihar Singh and Ramayan Singh jointly obtaining a Bhumidhari Sanad in their name, Ramayan Singh, plaintiff, can be deemed to have become a co-tenant and later a co-Bhumidhar of the plots. 7. The Bhumidhari Sanad was obtained under the provisions of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949 (to be referred hereinafter as the Act). Bhumidhari Sanad is evidence of the grant of declaration contemplated by Sec. 6 of the Act that the person has become entitled to the privileges provided by or under the Act. 8. It is by virtue of Sec. 3-B of the Act that any person claiming to be entitled as co-tenant of the holding along with the recorded tenants thereof, but whose name is not recorded in village papers relating thereto, can apply under Sec. 3 of the Act for a declaration in respect of the whole holding or his share therein. Such declaration can be granted after obtaining the consent in writing of the recorded tenants. On the application being allowed, the name of the applicant is recorded as a co-tenant and the provisions of Secs. 4 to 16 of the Act apply to him as if he had been a tenant whose name was already entered in the record of rights. In the instant case, consent in writing of Harihar Singh, recorded tenant, was obtained and, thereafter, the application under Sec. 6 was allowed and eventually the declaration under Sec. 6 was granted and the Bhumidhari Sanad issued in the joint names of Harihar Singh and Ramayan Singh. In case the order passed under Sec. 3-B of the Act and also the granting of declaration under Sec. 6 of the Act is conclusive and final as to the rights of tenants, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have become a co-tenant and later a co-Bhumidhar of the plots for which he obtained an order under Sec. 3-B and later a declaration under Sec. 6; but if any order passed or declaration given in the proceedings under the Act is not final and conclusive, the courts of law shall determine the right and title on consideration of the provisions of the general law, namely the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. A consideration of the provisions of the Act makes it clear that the grant of a declaration Under Sec. 6 of the Act, or the issue of the Bhumidhari Sanad, does not finally and conclusively determine the rights of the person granted the declaration or the Bhumidhari Sanad. 9. Sec. 3 of the Act makes no differentiation between a recorded and unrecorded tenant. What Sec. 3 (1) provides is that whoever being the tenant of the categories specified therein can apply to the Assistant Collector and he shall be entitled to a declaration with effect from the date on which the amount or the first instalment, on the case may be has been deposited, that he has be come entitled to the privileges provided by or under the Act. Such application has to be accompanied by the two documents detailed in Sec. 5 of the Act. The rent payable by the applicant is determined under Sec. 4 and, thereafter, the declaration is granted under Sec.6 of the Act. Upon the grant of the declaration under Sec. 6 of the applicant becomes entitled to the privileges detailed in Sec. 7 of the Act. 10. The declaration granted under Sec. 6 can be cancelled under Sec. 12 or 12-A of the Act. The declaration is cancelled under Sec. 12 of the application of any person interested and the cancellation of the declaration under Sec. 12-A is automatic on the area ceasing to be part of Uttar Pradesh in pursuance of the provinces and States (Absorption of Enclaves) Order, 1950. 11. Clause (c) of Sec. 12(1) of the Act makes it clear that the declaration granted under Sec. 6 can be cancelled if a decree, or order passed by a competent court in a suit of other proceedings with respect to the holding for which the declaration has been granted shows that the applicant under Sec. 3, 3-A, 3-B or 3-C was not entitled to the declaration under Sec. 6. The grant of the declaration under Sec. 6, therefore does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Court to decide whether the person granted the declaration was or was not entitled to such declaration. 12. The grant of the declaration under Sec. 6, therefore does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Court to decide whether the person granted the declaration was or was not entitled to such declaration. 12. Similarly, Sec. 7-A of the Act clearly lays down that no person shall, by virtue of any declaration made under Sec. 6, be entitled to any larger share in the holding that to which he may have been otherwise entitled and notwithstanding the declaration the interest of any other tenant in the holding shall continue unaffected. Where the person granted the declaration has no share in the holding, he cannot, by virtue of such declaration be entitled to any share in the holding and the declaration shall adversely affect the interest of the tenant or tenants holding the agricultural land. In the instant case, Ramayan Singh was not and could not be deemed to be a co-tenant of the holding and consequently he had no share therein and by virtue of the declaration made under Sec. 6 he could not claim any share in the holding nor could the interest of Harihar Singh be adversely affected. 13. Secs. 7-A and 12 of the Act make it clear beyond any controversy that the grant of the declaration under Sec. 6 does not confer any right in the person granted such declaration and the courts of law have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon his interest in or title to the holding for which the declaration had been granted, even though such declaration has not been cancelled. If the courts of law record a finding that the person was not entitled to the declaration on account of his having no interest in or title to the holding, he cannot assert his rights on the basis of the declaration already granted, though he can apply to the Assistant Collector under Sec. 12(1) of the Act to have the declaration cancelled and the amount already deposited refunded to him. To put it differently, the grant of the declaration under Sec. 6 does not determine the right and title of the person, nor is such declaration final and conclusive in the sense that his right or title cannot be challenged before the courts of law. 14. To put it differently, the grant of the declaration under Sec. 6 does not determine the right and title of the person, nor is such declaration final and conclusive in the sense that his right or title cannot be challenged before the courts of law. 14. When the right and title of the plaintiff could be adjudicated upon the courts of law, a finding shall have to be recorded on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case, independent of the declaration made under Sec. 6 of the Act. The plaintiff had not obtained the consent in writing of the Zamindar and hence he could not, in view of the proviso to Sec. 33 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, be deemed to be a co-tenant and being not a co-tenant he was not entitled to apply under Sec. 3-B of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants (Acquisition of Privileges) Act, 1949, and he could not be granted the declaration under Sec. 6. The plaintiff was also not in possession of the holding and hence did not become, in his own right, a hereditary tenant of the plots. He had no interest in the holding and could not, consequently, be granted the injunction prayed for, nor could the relief of possession, in the alternative, be granted to him. His suit was rightly dismissed by the courts below. 15. The Second Appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed with costs.