JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This appeal arises out of proceedings for determination of the shares of the parties under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The appellants filed an objection claiming to be the exclusive tenure-holders of the plots in dispute and praying that the names of the respondents be expunged. The Consolidation Officer upheld their claim. He field that the appellants were the tenure-holders of ?rd share by virtue of the sale-deed executed by the respondents in 1887 with regard to the remaining Lord share the Consolidation Officer held that the appellants had acquired title by adverse possession. These finding's were upheld by the Settlement Officer on appeal. The respondents then filed a second appeal. The Deputy Director discussed the evidence and held that the finding that the appellants had matured title by adverse possession and by ousting the respondents were perverse because there was really no evidence to prove ouster. He also observed that the lower appellate court had said nothing definite about the alleged ouster. On this view the revision was allowed. The orders of the Settlement Officer and Consolidation Officer were set aside and it was directed that the respondents will have a one-third share in the holding. The appellants filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed on the view that the findings of the Deputy Director were fair and just and that this is not a fit case for interference. Hence the present appeal. 2. The Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer had concurrently found that the appellants were in exclusive possession of the entire holding for a very long time. The case of the respondents was that they were also in possession of some of the plots of the holding. The theory of joint possession set up by the respondents was held not believable. These findings have not been set aside by the Deputy Director. He observed that there was no evidence on the file to prove ouster. So the finding that the appellants had acquired title over the one-third share was perverse. The theory of joint possession set up by the respondents was held not believable. These findings have not been set aside by the Deputy Director. He observed that there was no evidence on the file to prove ouster. So the finding that the appellants had acquired title over the one-third share was perverse. On the view that the lower appellate court had said nothing definite about the alleged ouster it was in our opinion desirable that the Deputy Director should have sent the case back to the Settlement Officer rather than to proceed on the basis as if the plea of acquisition of title by exclusive possession has failed. It should be recalled that the proceedings were governed by the Act as it stood prior to its amendment in 1963 when the revisional jurisdiction was confined to questions of jurisdiction only. The Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to enter into questions of fact and to record its own finding on the questions of fact. When he found that the Settlement Officer had not given any definite finding, he should have directed the Settlement Officer to decide those questions more carefully. 3. Annexure 1 to the writ petition is a copy of the objections filed by the appellants praying that the holding be partitioned. In paragraph 6 they specifically took the plea that they acquired title by exclusive and adverse possession. It cannot hence be said that there was no plea in this regard. The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is allowed in part. The order of the Deputy Director is quashed and the matter is sent back to the Settlement Officer for decision of the appeal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The parties may, however, bear their own costs.