JUDGMENT J.S. Gupta, M. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, in a case under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that Ravi Dutt and Jyoti Prasad, plaintiffs instituted the suit for the declaration of their rights as Sirdars and Bhumidhars of the land in dispute alongwith defendant No. 1. According to them, the land in question was joint ancestral property of undivided Hindu family, that plaintiffs were minors and the name of their uncle, Asha Ram, defendant No. 1, alone was recorded and Asha Ram had been dividing the produce between the parties. Asha Ram claimed himself to be the sole tenure-holder of the land in suit and denied the right and title of the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed on September 20, 1964, but in appeal the order was set aside and the case remanded back for fresh decision after considering the point whether the suit was barred by section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Additional Commissioner allowed the same, and modified the decree of the trial court to the extent that he declared the plaintiffs to be co-Bhumidhars and co-sharers of the land in dispute along with defendant No. 1. Asha Ram has now filed the present second appeal before the Board. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the village in which the land in dispute lies had been under consolidation operations, but the present respondents did not file any objection there. According to him, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. He pleaded that the presumption drawn by the lower appellate court with regard to entries during consolidation operations is erroneous. He cited 1976 Alld. Weekly Cases 229. He argued that the lower appellate court acted illegally in considering the point regarding ancestral nature of the tenancy. 4. He pleaded that the presumption drawn by the lower appellate court with regard to entries during consolidation operations is erroneous. He cited 1976 Alld. Weekly Cases 229. He argued that the lower appellate court acted illegally in considering the point regarding ancestral nature of the tenancy. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted in reply that the land in dispute was of the time of Kundan, father of Asha Ram and grandfather of the plaintiff, that Raja Ram, father of the plaintiffs, had predeceased Kundan, that at the time of death of Kundan, Ravi Dutt was of about 5 years and Jyoti Prasad was of one year, that when Kundan died U.P. Tenancy Act. No. XVII of 1939 was in force and that the tenancy would devolve on Asha Ram and the plaintiffs. According to him, the rights of the plaintiffs continued to subsist. He stated that the plaintiffs were in service outside the village, that during the course of consolidation operations the name of Asha Ram continued to be recorded as from before and that the plaintiffs did not file any objection as they felt satisfied with the state of affairs which existed from before consolidation operations started in the village. He cited 1965 R.D. 417, 1977 Alld. Weekly Cases 289 and 1977 R.D. 83. In 1977 R.D. 83, it was held by the Board as follows:- "Where no dispute took place before the consolidation authority and the entry as it existed was adopted in the record of rights and the possession have continued as they were and no trespass was found, there was no case for trespass or ejectment. Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act is not relevant here and is no bar to defendant showing with reference to all the antecedents and genealogy and pre-consolidation revenue records, how he and other descendants happen to be peacefully cultivating 2/3 of the plot and were not trespassers." He pleaded that entries made under Section 27 of the U.P.C.H. Act could be challenged and rebutted. He urged that the lower appellate court was correct in decreeing the suit. 5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record of the case. It is not disputed that the land in dispute originally belonged to Kundan, the common ancestor of the defendant and the plaintiffs. He urged that the lower appellate court was correct in decreeing the suit. 5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record of the case. It is not disputed that the land in dispute originally belonged to Kundan, the common ancestor of the defendant and the plaintiffs. It has been proved that the plaintiffs were minors at the time of Kundan's death while Raja Ram, father of the plaintiffs, had pre-deceased Kundan. The plaintiffs were entitled to inherit the tenancy being the sons of Raja Ram. The mere fact that only the name of Asha Ram alone was entered in revenue papers would not affect their rights because possession of one co-tenant would be deemed to be the possession of all. The name of Asha Ram alone continued to be recorded prior to start of consolidation operations. The plaintiffs did not file any objections during the course of consolidation proceedings. The learned Additional Commissioner after appreciating the circumstances of the case, observed that the plaintiffs had no occasion to assert their independent rights as co-tenants when the name of their uncle Asha Ram continued to be recorded in the papers even from pre-consolidation period they were getting the share of the procedure. The antecedents, genealogy and pre-consolidation position of revenue records reveal that the plaintiffs continued to be co-tenants alongwith defendant No. 1 Asha Ram. The learned Additional Commissioner was correct in holding that the name of Asha Ram before, during and after consolidation operations was recorded only in a representative capacity and failure to file any objection by the plaintiffs could not deprive them of their rights. The ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant relate to different circumstances and has no direct bearing on the facts of the present case. In my opinion, the plaintiff's succeeded in establishing that they were co-bhumidhars and co-sirdars of the land in dispute alongwith Asha Ram the lower appellate court rightly upheld their claim. 6. In view of the above, the second appeal is dismissed with costs and counsel's fee of Rs. 40/-.