JUDGMENT G.S. Sial, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated September 26, 1972 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. 2. Plaintiff filed a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act with the allegation that plaintiff and defendants 2 and 7 were co-tenure-holders of the land in dispute and by private partition the plaintiff is the sole tenure-holder of the dispute land. He further alleged that on plots of schedule B the name of Ram Adhar, defendant No. 1 was fictitiously recorded and in case he is found not in possession, the relief of possession may also be granted in respect of the plots mentioned in schedule B. 3. Defendant No. 1 is the sole contesting party. His defence was that he had become Adhivasi and thereafter Sirdar of the plots of Schedule B. In the alternative, he claimed to be Sirdar through adverse possession over the plots in schedule B. The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit and negatived the plea of defendant No. 1. The trial court held that defendant No. 1 had no concern in the plots in schedule B. Defendant No. 1 filed on appeal. The Additional Commissioner has declared the defendant No. 1, Ram Adhar as Sirdar of the two-plots in schedule B holding him to be Sirdar. Plaintiff therefore, filed this second appeal, which is confined to the dispute pertaining to the two plots of schedule B, i.e., the plots in dispute are 291/2 (1.15 acre) plot No. 316/1 (area 68 acre) total area 1.64 acres. 4. It is admitted to defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff along with defendant No. 2 to 7 are the original tenure-holders of the land in dispute. The basis of the claim of the defendant was that he was sub-tenant before the date of vesting and that he was incultivatory possession in 1359F. Therefore he claimed Adhivasi right under Section 20(1)(a) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and also under Section 3 of the Supplementary Act No. XXXI of 1952. The trial court rejected both the pleas. The Additional Commissioner has not reversed the finding of the trial court on these two pleas. The Addl. Commissioner has recorded the finding that the defendant No. 1 was in possession since 1359F and, therefore, he became Sirdar, presumably under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. The trial court rejected both the pleas. The Additional Commissioner has not reversed the finding of the trial court on these two pleas. The Addl. Commissioner has recorded the finding that the defendant No. 1 was in possession since 1359F and, therefore, he became Sirdar, presumably under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 5. The point that arises according to the appellant's counsel in this second appeal is that the finding of the Addl. Commissioner is based on a misreading of evidence regarding possession. Secondly, that the revenue entries relied upon by the Addl. Commissioner were illegal and not in accordance with the rules. The oral evidence has been believed by him because of the revenue entries. Therefore, once the revenue entries are discarded the oral evidence will also lose its significance. In the alternative, even accepting the finding regarding defendant's possession from 1359F, the Additional Commissioner has ignored defendant No. 1's admission that he entered into possession with the consent of the landholder. For an application of Section 209/210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act it was necessary that the possession should be otherwise than in accordance with the law and without the consent of the landholder. Therefore, if he himself admits the consent he could not acquire Sirdari Rights under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act learned counsel contended that the Additional Commissioner has accepted that the entries of 1359-62 were not correct as they were Tabadala entries (possession in exchange) there is no case of either party of exchange or Tabadala. Therefore, entries from 1362 Fasli showing defendant No. 1 over some of the plots in exchange of some other plots is wrong and not in accordance with the rules. Therefore, that entry cannot be taken into account. The Additional Commissioner has further held that in 1363-F and 1365-F there is a reference to P.A. 10. Learned counsel claimed that so far as he has been able to check the record, there is no Khasra entry of 1363 F on record. So far as 1365 F entry are concerned there is no reference to the issuance of P.A. 10. There fore there is a misreading on the part of the Additional Commissioner. The learned counsel claimed that the entries for other years were also incorrect. So far as 1365 F entry are concerned there is no reference to the issuance of P.A. 10. There fore there is a misreading on the part of the Additional Commissioner. The learned counsel claimed that the entries for other years were also incorrect. For instant of 1359 F there is no entry over plot No. 316/1, and with regard to plots No. 291/1 and 291/2 the entry is Tabadala entry. That entry is not in accordance with the rules according to the defendant. Similar is the position in 1365 and 1362 F. So far as 1364-F Khasra is concerned possession of Ram Adhar is recorded over 77 acres of plot No. 291/2 only, out of 1.15 acres. The remaining area is recorded in the name of Indrajit. Plot No. 316/1 area. 69 acre was recorded in the possession of Ram Adhar. In 1365F there is no reference to P.A. 10. In 1364 F Ram Adhar's name was recorded and also mention is made of P.A 10. In 1367 F Ram Adhar was recorded as Sirdar in the main column of the Khatauni over plot in dispute. The basis of this entry is the extract of C.L.R.D. of 1366F. Which described the name of the person in possession who have been Adhivasi. Therefore, from 1366F onwards the name of Ram Adhar was recorded as Sirdar under the orders passed under C.L.R.D. The learned counsel contended that on the basis of the entries from 1359F onwards right up to 1367F no case is made out for recording Ram Adhar as Adhivasi, Therefore, his description in the C.L.R.D. as Adhivasi is without any basis. The Additional Commissioner has also given a definite finding that Ram Adhar was not Adhivasi. The learned Additional Commissioner has come to the conclusion that Ram Adhar was not Adhivasi the entry in C.L.R.D. is not correct and on that basis no rights as Sirdar could be conferred on him. Therefore, the entries from 1367 F onwards describing him as Sirdar have no basis. So far as the oral evidence is concerned Ram Adhar himself has stated in his written statement that he had taken the land on Shikmi Adhivasi, a and thus his possession is with plaintiff's consent. Therefore one of the ingredients of Section 209/210 have not been satisfied. The defendant has never stated that later on his possession became without consent. So far as the oral evidence is concerned Ram Adhar himself has stated in his written statement that he had taken the land on Shikmi Adhivasi, a and thus his possession is with plaintiff's consent. Therefore one of the ingredients of Section 209/210 have not been satisfied. The defendant has never stated that later on his possession became without consent. Therefore, the finding of the Additional Commissioner should be set aside and the finding of the trial court restored. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the defendant had taken three alternative pleas; that he was sub-tenant and became Adhivasi and Sirdar; the defendant was in cultivatory possession in 1359 F, and became Adhivasi and Sirdar; the defendant has been in possession for more than the statutory period and, therefore, he has acquired rights by adverse possession. The appellate court has decided the case on the basis of possession for more than the statutory period. He submitted that the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the statement of defendant himself that that he entered into possession on Adhiya Batai and if he had genuinely relied upon the defendant's statement, it would imply that the defendant had become Adhivasi/Sirdar on his own submission. The learned counsel contended that either the admission should be read as a whole or it should be ignored. The court should, therefore, give in finding on the basis of the evidence on record in accordance with Section 20(1) read with Section 80 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The only condition for conferment of the Sirdari right is the entry of cultivatory possession in 1359F and that such possession need not be adverse. In respect of the entries, the learned counsel submitted that the entries of 1359-F - 1362F do make to the possession of the defendant, even though it was in exchange of certain plots, but these entries do prove possession. The learned counsel contended that consent is no part of the ingredient for conferring rights when possession started from 1359F. In respect of the entries, the learned counsel submitted that the entries of 1359-F - 1362F do make to the possession of the defendant, even though it was in exchange of certain plots, but these entries do prove possession. The learned counsel contended that consent is no part of the ingredient for conferring rights when possession started from 1359F. As a counter argument to the learned counsel for the opposite parties plea of possession with consent, the learned counsel stated that plaintiff has never asserted that the defendants possession was with his consent and in fact he has asserted that defendant has no concern with the property and, therefore, if the court holds that the defendants was in possession in 1359F it should be deemed to be adverse. 7. Secondly, the learned counsel referred to paragraph 83(3) of the Land Records Manual, which gives the right of Lekhpal to make Tabadala entry if he found the possession on that basis Learned counsel admitted that the counsel for the appellant has described the entries in the various years of Khasra correctly. Learned counsel stated that the mistake mentioned in 1363F or 1365F by the reasons that the respondent had already got his rights on the basis of 1356F. In any case, the continuity of possession will be presumed till 1364F. Learned counsel further submitted that law requiring the noting of issuance of P.A 10 in the Revenue records came into force from February 1958. Therefore, the contention in respect of 1365F or earlier will be of no avail. Secondly the entry of 1365F cannot be discarded on this ground. The learned counsel summed up his argument, on this behalf, saying that the mistakes mention by the learned Addl. Commissioner in respect of two entries will not vitiate the general conclusion that the defendant has been in possession from 1359F and has become Sirdar in accordance with the law. 8. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the oral evidence is enough to non-suit the plaintiff and the lower appellate court was within his jurisdiction to hold so. He has come to a definite conclusion that Ram Adhar was in possession in 1359F and onwards and that finding being finding of fact could not be up set. 9. I have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the record of the case. He has come to a definite conclusion that Ram Adhar was in possession in 1359F and onwards and that finding being finding of fact could not be up set. 9. I have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the record of the case. The main point urged in this appeal is that the finding of the Additional Commissioner is based on a misreading of evidence regarding possession or not and whether the revenue entries relied upon by the first appellate court were in accordance with the rules or not. I have been taken through revenue records entries in the various years. The learned Additional Commissioner had noted the entries correctly in his judgment except for the Khasra entry in 1363F. He does mention the period of entry in 1363F, but in paragraph 1 page 2 which deals with the revenue record entries of the various years there is no mention of the Khasra entries for 1363F. Obviously, therefore, the reference to 1363F on page 3 is not correct. However, it cannot be construed as a misreading of the record in view of the last paragraph on page 2 of his judgment which contains the real analysis of the entries. The conclusion that the learned. Additional Commissioner has drawn on page 23 is that the entries do establish the possession of Ram Adhar defendant-respondent in this case, and that the entries can be read for evidencing his possession. Thus it would not be correct to say that there is such a misreading in respect of 1363F and mention to P.A. 10 in 1365F (which does not exist) as may be shows on record. As regards the evidentiary value of the entries the case of the appellant is that there is no reference to issuance of P.A. 10 in 1365F though he does admit that there is such a reference in 1364F. From the above he wanted the court in draw the reference that Khasra entries should not be read in favour of Ram Adhar. On this point the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that rules requiring the the noting of issuance of P.A.10 in the revenue records came into force from Feb. 1958. Therefore the contention of the appellant in respect of 1365F or earlier is of a little validity and the entries of 1365F cannot be discarded on this ground. 1958. Therefore the contention of the appellant in respect of 1365F or earlier is of a little validity and the entries of 1365F cannot be discarded on this ground. I agree with this contention of the learned counsel and in the absence of rules about nothing that the factum of the issuance of P.A. 10 the entries for 1365F and earlier cannot be discarded. Thus may conclusion is that the mistakes referred by the learned Additional Commissioner in respect of these Khasra entries do not vitiate his general conclusion that the defendant had been in possession from 1359F and has become Sirdar in accordance with the law. His conclusion in regard to possession is fully supported by oral evidence which has been closely examined by the Addl. Commissioner. Thus there is a clear finding of fact on the point of possession which cannot be easily up set in second appeal. 10. The learned counsel has also contended that the Addl. Commissioner ignored defendant No. 1's admission that the entered into possession whit the consent of landholder and therefore he cannot acquire Sirdari rights under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. This contention has little validity for the simple reason that the plaintiff himself never claimed that defendant respondent was once his sub-tenant and that he had entered into possession with his consent. He therefore cannot be allowed to use the so called admission of the defendant for his benefit. In fact, the defendant had raised alternative pleas and one of the pleas was that defendant was in cultivator possession in 1359F and had been in possession for more than statutory period and therefore he had acquired rights by possession. The case had therefore been decided on the entire evidence on record in the case. Additional Commissioner after examining the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that the defendant has been in possession for more than the statutory period and therefore has acquired Sirdari rights in accordance with Section 20(a) read with Section 40 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The only condition for conferment of Sirdari rights is the entry of cultivatory possession in 1359F and such possession need not be adverse. The entries do make out the possession of the defendant from 1359F and the element of consent is no ingredient for conferring the rights when possession started from 1369F. 11. The only condition for conferment of Sirdari rights is the entry of cultivatory possession in 1359F and such possession need not be adverse. The entries do make out the possession of the defendant from 1359F and the element of consent is no ingredient for conferring the rights when possession started from 1369F. 11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the judgment of the first appellate court is basically correct and the possession of the respondent as has been proved established and is of such a nature as entitles him to become Sirdar. No interference is called for with the judgment of the learned Addl. Commissioner. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as without any force.