JUDGMENT S.N. Singh, J. - These two writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution are directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation with a prayer to quash his order. 2. The dispute in these two writ petitions is in respect of three khatas, Khata no. 6 of village Usrauli, khata no. 14 and khata no. 78 of village Khalilpur. Khatas nos. 6 and 14 mentioned above are bhumidhari khatas. Khata no. 78 of village Khalilpur is sirdari. 3. The facts giving rise to these cases are that one Padarath Rai along with others were co-proprietors and sir holders of the three khatas in dispute. Somewhere in the year 1887 Padarath Rai executed a sale deed in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner and respondents third set. It is said that after the sale the transferees entered into possession over the proprietary right as well as over the disputed plots. The transferees name was recorded as sirholder of these three khatas from the very inception. On the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the name of the petitioner and opposite parties second and third sets were recorded as bhumidhars over khatas nos. 6 of village Usrauli and 14 of village Khalilpur, but the names of these persons were recorded as sirdars over khata no. 78 of village Khalilpur. Neither party has been able to inform this Court as to how khata no. 78 was recorded sirdari khata in the name of the parties. However, on the findings recorded by the Deputy Director in respect of khata no. 78 this khata stands recorded in the name of both the parties and there is no dispute before me in respect of this khata. Therefore the decision of the Consolidation authorities in respect of khata no. 78 by which both the parties have been held to be co-sirdars has become final. The dispute between the parties now centres round khata no. 6 of village Usrauli and khata no. 14 of village Khalilpur. This decision, therefore deals only with these two khatas, khata no. 6 of village Usrauli and khata no. 14 of village Khalilpur. 4. Over these two khatas the names of the petitioner and opposite parties second set and third set were recorded as bhumidars. 6 of village Usrauli and khata no. 14 of village Khalilpur. This decision, therefore deals only with these two khatas, khata no. 6 of village Usrauli and khata no. 14 of village Khalilpur. 4. Over these two khatas the names of the petitioner and opposite parties second set and third set were recorded as bhumidars. The respondent second set on the start of consolidation proceeding preferred objections in respect of those two khatas and claimed to be the sole bhumidhars of these two khatas and it was asserted that the entry of bhumidhari in the name of the petitioner and respondents third set was fictitiously made. The objection of respondent second set was accepted by the Consolidation Officer who directed the expunction of the names of the petitioner as well as of the respondents third set from these two khatas in dispute. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Consolidation Officer two appeals were preferred before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) . The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) having considered the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that on the execution of the sale deed of the year 1887 the vendees of Padarath Rai entered into possession not only on the proprietors right which then stood in Padarath Rai but also on the plot which were recorded as sir plots which were in possession of Padarath Rai. The finding of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) further was that although on the transfer of the property in favour of the vendees they did not become sir holders but the vendees became khudkasht holders qua the share of Padarath Rai and since they continued in possession till the date of the start of Consolidation proceedings the parties became co-bhumidhars of the disputed khatas. For this finding the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) relied on three sets of litigation between the parties. The first litigation was in the year 1906 when the petitioner and the respondents third set filed a suit for arrears of rent against respondents second set claiming to be the sirholder of four plots one of Khalilpur and three of Usrauli. This suit for arrears of rent was dismissed. In the year 1908 respondents second set filed a suit for possession and declaration of their right as sole sirholder in respect of these very plots for which the petitioner and respondents third set had filed a suit for arrears of rent. This suit for arrears of rent was dismissed. In the year 1908 respondents second set filed a suit for possession and declaration of their right as sole sirholder in respect of these very plots for which the petitioner and respondents third set had filed a suit for arrears of rent. This suit of respondents second set was decreed by the trial court but on appeal the lower appellate court dismissed it. The dismissal of the suit was maintained by the High Court. Thereafter it appears that the petitioner and respondents third set brought a suit against the respondents second set in respect of the same set of the plots claiming to be the sole sirholders of those plots. That suit as would appear from the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was decreed and the decree became final between the parties. Unfortunately none of these judgments which have been referred to in the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) were noticed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation nor these judgments have been filed before me so that I may have a clear idea about those judgments. However, on the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) about the continuous possession of the vendees that is the ancestors of the petitioners and the respondents third set the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) appears to be correct that the parties became co-bhumidhars of the two khatas in dispute. 6. The Deputy Director of Consolidation referred to the litigations between the parties but in one line he says that the decisions in these litigations are of not help to the petitioner and the respondents third set. In absence of the decisions before this Court it is difficult to say one way or the other but if the facts as stated in the judgment of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) are correct the Deputy Director certainly is not right that these decisions are of no avail to the petitioner and respondents third set. However, since I am of the opinion that the case has to be remanded it is not necessary to insist on the filing of these judgments in this Court. However, since I am of the opinion that the case has to be remanded it is not necessary to insist on the filing of these judgments in this Court. The Deputy Director having considered the sale of the proprietary right in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner and the respondents third set came to the conclusion that since the transferor did not claim ex proprietary tenancy the sir became sir of the remaining co-sharers. Accordingly he considered that although there is long standing entry in favour of the petitioner and the respondent third set they cannot take benefit of this wrong entry and held that it was only respondents second set who were the bhumidhars of the disputed khatas. In my opinion the decision of the Deputy Director is patently erroneous on the face of the record as such I propose to expose the correct law on the point and propose to leave this matter to be decided by the Deputy Director because the Deputy Director is the final court of fact and it has been urged on behalf of the contesting respondents that the matter should be sent back to the Deputy Director who, should decide it finally. This request of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents second set appears to be reasonable. 7. The law on the point is that when a co-sharer of sir plots transfers his proprietary right there is an automatic accrual of exproprietary tenancy in favour of the transferor qua his share. The Deputy Director has followed the view of the Board of Revenue wherein it has been held that on such a transfer the sir becomes the sir of the remaining co-sharers, but this view has not been accepted by this Court, vide Jokhu Mal v. Gopi Mal, A.I.R. 1952 Alld. 251. The view of this Court is that on the transfer by a co-sharer the sir of such co-sharer becomes his exproprietary tenancy and if within time he does not claim exproprietary tenancy and the transferee enter into possession the land ceases to be sir qua the share of the transferor and becomes Khalsa land and if the transferee continues in possession over the share of the transferor he becomes the khudkashtholder qua the share of the transferor. This is the legal correct position which the Deputy Director has ignored. 8. This is the legal correct position which the Deputy Director has ignored. 8. There is yet one thing which should be pointed out that if a proprietor continuously cultivates a plot of land for a period of twelve years before 1st January 1902 in such a case that khudkasht plot also assumed the nature of sir vide Section 4 (b) of Agra Tenancy Act 3 of 1926. If such is the finding of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in the present case that the vendee entered into possession and remained in cultivatory possession from 1887 right up to the date of start of consolidation proceedings then on the passing of the Agra Tenancy Act 3 of 1926 it could safely be held that although the share of the transferor which was in possession of the vendee was not the sir of the vendee but by lapse of time it can be held to have become the sir of the vendee. The further mistake which the Deputy Director appears to have committed is in ignoring the fact that after the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act when there is an entry made in favour of one party or the other that entry has to be presumed to be correct unless the contrary is proved. The parties were recorded as co-bhumidhars. It was for the contesting respondents second set to prove that the entry of co-bhumidhari is wrong. The Deputy Director appears to have placed onus on the petitioner and the respondents third set in coming to the contrary conclusion. He having found that sir right was not transferable he came to the conclusion that if there was an entry of sir in favour of the petitioner and respondents third set it must necessarily be wrong. This assumption of the Deputy Director is not justified in law. However, in absence any finding recorded by the Deputy Director about the possession of the vendees of Padarath Rai and their successors I accept the request of the learned counsel for the respondents second set and propose to quash the order of the Deputy Director and direct him to decide the case afresh in the light of the observations made above. 9. In the result these two petitions are allowed, the orders of the Deputy Director so far as khatas nos. 9. In the result these two petitions are allowed, the orders of the Deputy Director so far as khatas nos. 6 and 14 are concerned are hereby quashed and the Deputy Director is directed to decide the claims of the parties afresh in the light of the observations made above. The decision of the Deputy Director so far as khata no. 78 is concerned is made final. The petitioner is entitled to one set of costs in these two cases.